Floor Statements

I thank the Speaker for noting that disparaging the President is not appropriate for this House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and the contribution of Bill Horn, a man who gave first his service to the country in Vietnam and then went on to be one of the longest serving county supervisors in San Diego County.

Bill Horn wanted more for his family, and he worked hard to do it. While being a county supervisor full time, he also ran successful agriculture.

Mr. Speaker, in his retirement, he did more philanthropic work around the world at his own expense than people will ever know. The unsung hero of Vietnam, our county supervisor, a man of simple means and no ambition, did so much for those who needed him. He will be honored and missed.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.

We are in changing times. The ongoing battles, both in Iran and in Ukraine, have taught us an important lesson. That is that large, long- term vendors for production of innovative tools don't work together. The lead time is too long. The requirement for us to innovate at the Department of War simply isn't working. We need to have small, innovative companies to be able to come forward and be given small allotments in order to develop. However, those allotments are seldom sufficient to operate a company for 1, 2, or 3 years to develop and get a contract going.

For that reason, like other startups of all sorts, particularly in the technology field in America, they would normally go to private funding, go to venture firms. But there is a problem. If what you are producing for the Department of War or any other part of our government is classified, you have to say: I have a new product. I can't tell you about it. Trust me and invest.

That simply doesn't work.

More importantly, the requirements from within the government often are not available to the investor. Therefore, it is difficult to get.

My amendment deals with this serious problem in a predictable and controlled way. Our 5-year pilot program simply says that with the permission of the Department of War, individuals within qualified investment firms may receive or update their clearances so that they can be part of the investment decision.

It does not preclude their being excluded for any reason, including-- and I particularly want to note this--companies which have a foreign investment profile would have to disclose and may very well be excluded.

However, the American investment community with American funds is more than sufficient to find, seek out, and invest in innovative companies that can give us a low-cost antidrone product or a low-cost drone, or any other number of critically needed and affordable products.

For that reason, we are asking that the Department of War under this pilot program be empowered to allow for these nonoriginal participants to have, on a limited basis, with controls completely in the hands of the Secretary of War and while he retains full authority to revoke participation for any security violation, foreign ownership, control, influence, or any other concern.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close if the other side has concluded.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I will be brief.

I am not going to address the items that were said by the opposition because they don't go to the safeguards in this piece of legislation.

Without this amendment, there is nothing to stop the administration from providing, without specific requirements to disclose, classifications to any and all individuals, particularly individuals that are, quite frankly, within companies either doing or wanting to do business with the Federal Government.

It doesn't stop the large companies from having unlimited access to programs that may not be widely understood. As a result, they get an advantage of bidding on something no one knows about.

Instead, what it requires is annual reporting, including to this body, to Congress, to ensure that we can monitor this program. It sunsets. It is not for this administration, but for a 5-year period.

Most importantly, it is extremely limited to private equity investing, by definition in private companies. No part of public companies are affected here, just the opposite.

This is an opportunity for private companies to find investors who can only invest if they have a reasonable knowledge of what the product is asked to be and nothing more, and every one of them must still pass the same rigorous application and retention policy for whatever level of clearance is required.

Mr. Chairman, I would hope that these words would help the other side understand that, in fact, Congress gains more control over many of the things being complained about by passing this amendment than by not.

Mr. Chair, I urge support for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on the vote by the yeas and nays on the question of adoption of H. Con. Res. 86 may be postponed until the legislative day of June 3, 2026.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first or the second time the Pechanga have reached out to expand these historic and ancestral lands and to preserve them. We have a long track history now of the Pechanga Indians taking into trust and improving the lands that they have purchased or that are transferred.

Previously, the Bureau of Land Management came to us and said: We have land we cannot afford to maintain. It has no value. It is a mountainside. Is there any interest in it by the Native American Tribes in the area? We were pleasantly surprised to discover that, yes, there was. And, in fact, they had for years been clandestinely trying to do what they could to preserve the land.

As many people know, California's Native Americans were landless for many years, displaced by the Spaniards, taken away, and not until Ulysses S. Grant did they begin returning to their ancestral homes.

As a result, there are massive amounts of their historic lands that either lie in private hands or public hands.

Pechanga has bought at its own expense private lands, in this case public lands which are not able to be maintained properly and which would have a cost to the Federal Government. These lands will be taken over and maintained by the Pechanga Band of Native American Indians. That means that the Federal Government saves money through this transfer.

More importantly, their stewardship has, in fact, been good for the surrounding area. As many people know, fires rage in southern California on a regular basis. Land that is not properly maintained, especially with low-lying, highly flammable shrubbery, burns quickly and spreads to surrounding areas. Under the Pechanga stewardship, that will be partially abated and, in fact, managed.

Lastly, Pechanga at its own expense has built a large fire department, one that maintains these lands as well or better than the surrounding communities. That means for Temecula, Riverside County, and other areas, again, this is a savings at the expense of the Tribe. They do this because of the importance of the land to their people.

For that reason, I ask that this be moved forward positively on behalf of the Federal Government's benefit and the benefit of our Native Americans.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, in addition to the disparaging of the President, the previous speaker implied that this was about money from defense contractors. Shame on anyone who would say that.

I was a first lieutenant about to be a captain when the war was declared against us 47 years ago. Iran has been at war with us and the world for 47 years.

In 1982, I was a young captain when they killed 220 marines with their bombs and their proxies in Lebanon.

Should we say, in fact, this is not defense of America against a country that every day for 47 years has said

that we are the evil ones and must be destroyed? First of all, the right to defend, going back to Thomas Jefferson, has not been a question of the Constitution. It has been an obligation of the President.

To invoke the War Powers Act as though this is not defense and then to imply that there is any purpose other than to recognize that this pervasive threat that has killed Americans and others around the world decade after decade was getting stronger and stronger?

Even though I hear that there was no U.N., no this or that, I have visited Ukraine, where their assembled parts are killing Americans, Russians, Ukrainians, anyone they want because they are an exporter of terror.

The fact is, around the world, we are at war with the country of Iran. In my ancestral country of Lebanon, today, their proxies are firing on Israel in support of their hatred of the little Satan, we being the big Satan.

Am I defending the actions of the President? You betcha. I have defended it for my entire quarter of a century here, regardless of the party.

The only thing I can't defend is the idea that we have placated and empowered Iran time and time again, so that today the job is harder and longer than it otherwise would be.

Lastly, there is no question that if we withdraw or cease at this time, we are saying to the next Ayatollah, the next Supreme Leader, that, in fact, the United States will not see this through. We will be empowering them to spread their terror, to have more American blood on their hands as a result.

Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on this resolution because it is not only unconstitutional, but it is also ill-advised at a time in which we are defending America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to slightly drift off, but not really leave this point.

Fentanyl kills 5,000 in New York. It kills 100,000 in the U.S. It kills thousands in Canada and thousands in Mexico. Those numbers are staggering, but those numbers are a small part of the tragedy to families.

For every fentanyl death in our countries, there are families who are suffering. For every fentanyl death, there is somebody who goes to the hospital multiple times. For every fentanyl death, there are three or four people who are living homeless, drug addicted, and their families are suffering. For every death, there is, in fact, a broken relationship somewhere. That is not 100,000 in America. That is millions in America.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know of an American that you talk to about fentanyl who won't tell you that they know someone whose family, their health, or their child has been destroyed by fentanyl, many of them being destroyed as we speak.

There are about 1,900 miles of Mexican border between the United States and Mexico. I represent about 80 of those miles right there outside of San Diego. I have seen the border closed as best it possibly could in an amazing way. I have seen submarines still coming in the Pacific to try to circumvent it. I know we will never get to zero.

All the President has asked Canada to do is show the kind of effort they can afford as a First World country, and that effort should be far greater at all of their borders than Mexico's, which is a relatively poor country. That effort should be shown. If it is shown, the President has made it clear that these tariffs will immediately go away.

This isn't a tariff that is just because you don't like someone. It is a tariff that says this behavior, this leverage, is being used for one purpose: to get you to live up to a standard that is in your own best interests.

By the way, the 5,500 miles of land border between the U.S. and Canada is our longest by far. The thousands of miles of sea border that Canada needs to also patrol is huge. This President stands with Canada to help them do it, to help in technical ways and every other way, but we cannot allow millions of Americans and countless other Canadians and Mexicans to continue to suffer without us having the real empathy to do something about it.

The chairman said: What about the 5,000? We got this answer: How do you know that they came from Canada? I am sorry, but every time we have a major bust on the Mexican border, my agents tell me that we are getting maybe 10 percent, maybe 20 percent in certain areas. We are never getting 80 or 90 percent. The reality is that those are indications of a small amount of what is getting in through Buffalo and other borders into the United States.

Although the gentleman from New York is from a fairly populous State, he is not from a State without a large rural border, one that you can simply walk across with impunity normally, which has been used to smuggle drugs successfully.

The point I make here today--and I thank the chairman for the time-- is: Every life matters. If the President of the United States cares about his 5,000 or 500 or 5 or 1 enough to use the power of the executive office to get the right thing out of our neighbors to the north and the south, then I want to stand with him. I would never take away a tool being used to save even one life, much less hundreds of thousands of lives and millions of families.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in both tribute and sorrow for the life and loss of an outstanding man, an extraordinary innovator, and a great friend. We lost Martin Olondriz Tuason late last year, and the news is as difficult to fathom today as it was then and every day since.

He was larger than life and a person of boundless energy, but those who had the privilege to spend time with him out of the spotlight saw the rest of Martin: his warm smile, compassionate heart, unwavering kindness, and indefatigable spirit.

He commanded the heights of his business and was a trusted advisor to government leaders around the world, yet he was available, accessible, and the easiest man to talk to. As consuming as his career was--as President and CEO of Armscor/Rock Island Armory--he made everyone else his priority. Martin was a singular force but also a loyal teammate, an enterprise leader but also an industrywide advocate, a decisive decision-maker but also a patient consensus builder.

He had an unwavering belief in doing things the right way, and he kept faith with more than a century of his family's history and legacy by protecting the values of his father and grandfather: respect, integrity, craftsmanship, and service. These are the hallmarks that made his company the largest privately owned firearms and ammunition manufacturing company in Southeast Asia with exports to more than 60 countries, including the United States and Australia, as well as nations in Europe, South America, and Southeast Asia.

But Martin's most proud role--as he would unhesitatingly tell everyone--was not in the C-suite, but as a loving husband to Tammy and a fiercely devoted father to Nate, Olivia, James--and as so many have shared--a father figure to many more. Outside of his family he left an indelible mark on every life that he touched--and for one man, he managed to touch so many lives around the world.

Those who knew Martin best have shared what was best about him: he carried his charge willingly, graciously, and without complaining--out of duty and love in his big heart. He truly cared for others. He was smart, fearless, gentle, and kind.

There is a void to fill in our world, and that is the challenge for the friends of Martin Tuason: those of us who knew him, who admired him, and who will always miss him.

Mr. Speaker, a lot can be said about my friend and colleague, my Western Caucus chair, but today was a special day for us. We had lunch today as California members, and Doug paid for it because every week somebody sponsors it. His death was so sudden that it literally had been prepaid. It arrived, and we sat there thinking of the person who had the best joke every week, who had a constant, positive sense of humor, even about dire times.

We talked not long ago about how much he got done during the shutdown and what it was like to actually meet with his constituents multiple days in a row, day after day. That was Doug LaMalfa--a farmer, a family man, but most importantly, somebody that could always find the positive and the funny about whatever we were doing.

We are a body of 431 right now. At our best, we are a body of 435. It is the one that we are missing that can make a difference, and that was Doug. He will be missed for a very long time by all of us.

Mr. Speaker, a minute and a half or an hour, the words would still have to be the same. We have all said that this will pass the House, perhaps unanimously, today.

I think all of us who have looked at the details of this particular bill know that it is flawed and that before it goes to the President's desk it has to be amended, as it can be amended in the Senate. We call on the Senate to amend it so that we protect the innocent, so that we have the provisions that were intended, perhaps, to be in this bill but are not properly written.

With that, President Trump has said get it to his desk, and he will sign it. President Trump has said he will do it. However, I am going to say to all of us: It is also important that we remember that Epstein is dead, but people live on, people who were innocent, people who, in fact, should not be named.

We are not talking about the rich and the powerful. We are talking about the very victims. That is what we need to make sure is amended before it goes to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his time. I think no more needs to be said. This body will vote for it all. But let's not kid ourselves, it has to be changed so that it properly protects both the tradition of the grand jury and, clearly, those innocent people that would otherwise be swept up.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend a warm welcome to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, His All-Holiness Bartholomew, the spiritual leader and ``First Among Equals'' of more than 300 million Orthodox Christians worldwide. During this historic visit to the United States, His All-Holiness will receive the Templeton Prize-- the world's most prestigious award in Religion and Science.

Patriarch Bartholomew's efforts to promote religious freedom and human rights and his initiatives to advance religious tolerance among the world's religions, together with his work toward international peace and environmental protection, have justly placed him at the forefront of global visionaries as an apostle of love, peace, and reconciliation.

We are privileged to host the longest-serving Archbishop of Constantinople in history here in our Nation's Capital, as he meets with the President, Secretary of State, and Congress. His visit to the United States serves as a testament to his unwavering commitment to fostering mutual respect and religious tolerance on a global level.

I look forward to the opportunity to welcome His All-Holiness and express our collective gratitude for his continued leadership and dedication to the cause of peace and religious liberty. In the words of His All-Holiness: ``If our age will be remembered, it may be for those who dedicated themselves to the cause of peace.''

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Madam Chair, in closing, the gentleman from Florida is entitled to his opinion. It is an opinion he has brought to us not once, but multiple times. Each time this body has voted down, on a broad bipartisan basis, this amendment.

There is reason for that, Madam Chair. It has been voted down repeatedly because, in fact, it is misguided, and it relies on facts that simply aren't facts.

I don't know about the author of this bill, where he got it, but I can tell you this. I have stood in Lebanon with our Special Forces who are training and working on a constant basis with the LAF. I have stood in Lebanon and seen the destruction of Hezbollah caches, massive amounts. More than that, I have met with our ally Israel, and in conversation with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, I asked him: Should we continue to give money to the LAF? His answer was short: Give them more.

Madam Chair, King Abdullah of Jordan has been passing on necessary vehicles to help them do their job better, and Israel created the opportunity for them to retake all of Lebanon and rid it of the Iranian influence and Hezbollah once and for all.

Our President; his predecessor, Joe Biden; his predecessor, Donald Trump; his predecessor, Barack Obama; and his predecessor, George W. Bush, don't agree on much, but they agree on this: It has been worth the investment. It is paying dividends. You do not let up just at a point when they are clearing out and making safe for a democracy that, in fact, would work there but for foreign forces with weapons.

Madam Chair, this has been defeated before, but before we didn't have the good news and the support of every neighbor and our President the way we do today.

I ask all Members to vote against this, not because they can't make a point that Lebanon is a country that has been influenced but because they can't make a point that the LAF is anything but the only force that can, in fact, bring an eradication of Hezbollah and keep Iran from reoccupying that, something that Israel supports and we support.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life of Bo Mazzetti--a veteran, a veteran statesman, and a relentless champion for tribal sovereignty and the people of the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians.

For over two decades. Bo not only led his own tribe but also helped lead California's Native nations into a more prosperous future. Known for his steady hand, quiet dignity. and unmatched resolve. Bo was most importantly a leader who never failed to listen. From San Diego County, to Sacramento, and all the way to the halls of Congress--he made historic changes to advance tribal sovereignty. Be it tribal water rights, infrastructure modernization, or unjust gaming compacts. Bo brought common sense solutions to difficult problems.

A Vietnam veteran, Bo remained devoted to leadership and service from the time he enlisted in the Navy. And to those of us who had the honor to serve and work alongside him--he was a friend.

Bo's legacy will live on in the lands he protected, the institutions he built, and the generations he empowered. My prayers are with his wife, Mary, his children. and the entire Rincon community,

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I send to

the desk a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I call up the bill (H.R. 1526) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1526.

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

Madam Speaker, in recent years it has become glaringly obvious that Federal judges are overstepping their constitutional bounds under Article III of the Constitution which applies that lower courts are created under statute by Congress. Pursuant to congressional action, district judges are limited to the plaintiff before them that has nexus in their district.

Madam Speaker, in short, that means that a district judge needs to be confined to their district and to people who are in their district. Case after case, over decades, has shown that when they fail to do so, the cases are thrown out.

More importantly, if they were to continue to do what is generally called nationwide injunctions, then, in fact, there would be no need for a 5-4 or 6-3 decision by the High Court. The High Court of nine must reach a majority in order to make something the law of the land, and yet a single district judge believes they can make the law of the land.

Since President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges whom they have sought out to take their cases and weaponized nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives.

Proof of that occurred just yesterday when, by a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, yet another judge's national ban was overturned.

These actions touch on many of the most critical issues facing our country, such as securing our borders, reforming insufficient and ineffective government bureaucracy, and strengthening our military.

Let me be absolutely clear. These sweeping injunctions represent judicial activism at its worst. Don't just take my word for it, Madam Speaker. As late as October of last year, the Solicitor General of the Biden administration urged the end of these practices, stating that, in fact, the Biden administration has to win every time, but the opposition only has to win one out of even one dozen cases. That is exactly the problem we are facing.

The Supreme Court regularly considers cases that are done in the ordinary course where one district judge, and perhaps a jury, rules one way and another rules another way, and the courts, through the appellate process, come up with a single law of the land. However, they do so looking at the arguments of both winning and losing, and they do so while the administration is not nationally and internationally banned.

National injunctions are being used to halt executive actions and executive orders not just for plaintiffs before the court but across the entire country, including individuals and entities that are not even parties to the litigation and, in many cases, may not favor the outcome and would not have been willing plaintiffs.

This undermines the system of government. It empowers individual, unelected judges to dictate national policy and to thwart the Constitution to take rights reserved to Congress and the President of the United States.

NORRA, the No Rogue Rulings Act, puts an end to this type of abuse. Under NORRA, we reaffirm the principles that district court orders can only bind parties before the court and not nonparties across the country. This reform will also discourage the growing trend to forum shop, Madam Speaker. If you can go to Hawaii because you can find a judge who will rule against an action taken here in the District of Columbia, then you will do so if you can get a nationwide injunction. If you can only enjoin individuals who may not even be affected by it, then there is no incentive to do so.

Madam Speaker, there are 677 current judge positions not including those on senior status. There are 677 individuals, each of whom can exceed their authority and stymie the legitimate actions of government. In some cases, these judges have even ordered the payment of amounts when the administration has determined that there is great risk of fraud.

During the last administration, they objected to this. They tried to stop it. Even in the last days before the election, the Biden administration was doing everything they could to accomplish what we are doing here today. In fact, there was even legislation in the last Congress authored by Democrats to do it.

This is not a partisan issue. It may be a timely issue for this President, but that does not make it partisan. To do the right thing at this time is critical.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the No Rogue Rulings Act and restore the constitutional balance and respect for separation of powers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO estimate for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder).

Mr. Speaker, I did ask unanimous consent that all Members be able to place extraneous material in the Record. I guess they are taking me up on it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt).

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can just consider that every time the other side speaks, they will be speaking in violation of our rules about disparaging the President, and you need not say it each time, I trust.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).

Mr. Speaker, I note that what the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert) is referring to is what has now been affirmed as an inaccurate decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. My colleagues on the other side, in disparaging the President, keep using the word ``illegal.''

I ask that my Democratic Colleagues really reconsider. The minority may disagree with the executive actions of the President. From time to time, the court may disagree. Yet, in fact, not only are his actions not illegal, but they are well within the reach of what any President might well do in trying to defend the United States from enemies, foreign and domestic.

We can disagree about the meaning of a law that has been on the books for 225 years. We should not disparage the motives or the actions of the chief executive simply because we disagree.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring down a little bit of the tone and remind everyone in this Chamber that the chief executive, since it was George Washington, has been charged by Congress to be the first to interpret the faithful execution of the Constitution and the amazing amount of laws that have been passed in our nearly 250 years.

During those decades, one after another, all the way back with Marbury v. Madison, there have been disagreements and the Court has interpreted, but those interpretations, including Brown v. Board of Education, historically became nationwide when the High Court by a majority ruled one direction or the other. That is the way our Founding Fathers intended it to be.

The ranking member of the full committee is a scholar and a teacher, a professor of this, and knows full well that we created under the Constitution a Supreme Court and then we gave to this branch, to Article I, to the Congress, the authority to create subordinated and specialized or limited courts. Those courts of any sort are under the Supreme Court because only the Supreme Court is to rule on the law of the land.

Now, my colleagues have noted the last administration and the fact that parties, including more than a dozen attorneys general, from time to time came and asked for and may or may not have been granted nationwide protection. This bill, as amended in committee, thoughtfully amended, in fact, takes into consideration that there may be times in which multiple States are represented before one judge. As long as that judge is the nexus of at least one, and in the case of the District of Columbia perhaps speaks for all, he or she should rule on behalf of all the plaintiffs represented in front of them.

Let it be clear: The work of the Supreme Court is not just to overturn one ruling by a judge. The Court most often in the 62 to 66 cases it takes per session, per year, rules primarily on when there is a difference between the ruling in one and the ruling in another. It rules very often because there needs to be a single voice for the law of the land.

There doesn't always have to be. The fact is, if a plaintiff comes and says they represent one of many unlawful aliens, criminals, or terrorists who have been deported under a law that has been on the books for more than 225 years, the judge has a right to rule if that defendant has a legitimate nexus in their court, has a right to rule as to that plaintiff or any others that come before him that have nexus, but to rule that the President must turn an airplane around with dangerous terrorists on it, why? Why would you do that?

The fact is, judges are shopped for. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, rightfully so, said that venue shopping has become a problem. That is not limited to Republicans or Democrats. In fact, both sides do it.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they do it in civil cases. They do it all over the place. Lawyers are very good at it, but as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and

the Internet and with the ranking member of the full committee here today, it is our obligation to fine-tune the law so that, in fact, these kinds of injustices don't happen. We are here today to fine-tune the law to protect the Constitution and the intent of Congress for more than 225 years.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday the Court ruled against the district judge by a 5-4 ruling undoing this whole question of does the President have the right to deport aliens. Yes. They said that there was a possibility of bringing a case in Texas as to one or more of them. To be honest, we have said that for quite a while that, in fact, there was a procedure and that, in fact, the chief judge of the D.C. circuit assigned himself four cases and made a decision that a chief judge should know better than.

Now, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said the right way to deal with a judge that makes a bad ruling is, in fact, appeal it. However, the right way to deal with judges who take cases, take another case, take a total of four cases so far, and seem to rule very predictably, even if inaccurately, against the Trump administration is, in fact, to rein in the excesses.

We try to do this in a measured way. I might note for the speaker that just today by a 7-2 overwhelming majority, the Court ruled, to no surprise to this Congressman, that the President has the right to dismiss probationary employees, even though an activist judge stayed that and said that he didn't have that right, that somehow everyone else can get rid of probationary employees, including the last administration that summarily dismissed immigration judges on the last days of the probationary period, and did so without seeing a nationwide injunction.

There were plenty of opportunities to disagree, but I hope that my colleagues, once again, as the speaker has so well stated, will stop claiming that these are illegal actions when we simply agree or disagree with the actions of the President and in many cases the Court finds the President is well within his rights in faithfully executing his obligations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the gentleman is prepared to close as am I, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I close, since the ranking member so aptly named a couple of famous quotes and famous movies, I might call attention to the line: What we have here is a failure to communicate.

The other side, just a few months ago, supported this legislation in a more radical form than, in fact, we bring today. Thanks to Congressman Schmidt and others on the committee, we have thoughtfully amended this to make it limited, for which the ranking member and others seem to claim that we were somehow being nefarious. No, we weren't.

In the last cycle under President Biden, yes, half a dozen or so attorneys general came and disagreed with the attempt to forgive $188 billion in student loans. There was a temporary injunction on behalf of those multiple States. Lo and behold, the High Court stated and ruled that, in fact, he didn't have the authority, saving us nearly $200 billion that was being given away by Joe Biden.

Not in any way deterred by that, President Biden bragged that he circumvented it and did give away billions more. That is still something being worked on by this body.

Presidents push the limits of their authority. President Biden certainly did. President Obama famously said he didn't have the authority to do things and then did them later and dared the Court to stop him.

I think we have to come here and realize if we do our job, we are drawing the appropriate balance on one of the two branches that we do have an obligation to keep an eye on. We keep an eye on the executive branch, and the minority being the branch not of the President generally calls the strikes, the balls, and not the home runs. That is okay. They do it, and they have been doing it for 250 years. I commend them.

We also have an obligation to come together, to communicate, to not have a failure to communicate, to realize that on behalf of the American people, on behalf of the best interests of the High Court not being swamped with an amazing amount of these, and not having future Presidents find themselves deterred from executing what they believe is best in a timely fashion, that we come together and vote this moderate and, quite frankly, modest piece of legislation. It won't stop all national injunctions, but it will define more narrowly when they can be done. I hope we would do that.

I will close simply by saying Teddy Roosevelt sent the Great White Fleet out not necessarily having the money to get them back. Franklin Delano Roosevelt pushed the bounds of the Constitution for what he thought was right, including the incarceration of threats to our democracy under this very act, and the Court affirmed that.

Presidents have seen reasons to do it. This President has seen an onslaught, more than 10 million illegals, many of them actually here from terrorist gangs, and he is trying to protect our Nation.

I would hope that instead of talking about Elon Musk and others, we would come together to do something that we know if the next President is of the other party, my colleagues will be supporting something that looks amazingly like what we have in front of us today.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that all who are watching and listening take heed that this is a bill supported by the last administration and should be supported by everyone in this body.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate my constituent, Escondido resident, the secret soldier of the Korean War, and America's true Top Gun hero. I'm talking about the one and only Captain Royce Williams, who turns 100 tomorrow, on April 4th.

It is difficult to describe what Royce did for more than 30 harrowing minutes more than 70 years ago in the skies over the North Pacific and the coast of North Korea.

On that day in 1952, Capt. Williams faced seven Soviet MiG-15s. Alone. Royce shot down four. Alone.

He survived dozens of bullet holes to his plane, and a 37-millimeter round to his fuselage. Six inches to the right or left would have meant certain death.

This was indomitable courage and the demonstration of the highest skill under incalculable duress. And it was kept secret for 40 years.

We won't stop until Royce Williams receives the recognition he doesn't seek but richly deserves.

I wish a Happy Birthday to Royce. Next stop: The Congressional Medal of Honor.