Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is Small Business Week, and we are getting back to the basics: less red tape, lower taxes, and policies that actually help people who run a business and hire workers.

Small businesses are the building blocks of our economy. They do not need more interference from Washington or their home State. They need us to be out of the way of what they need to do to provide the things people actually want.

That is why I am working to stop the largest tax hike in American history and to make the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions permanent. These lower rates help businessowners grow and reinvest in their own workers.

Under President Trump, we saw how lower taxes and fewer regulations actually sparked real growth. We are building on that by passing bills that support small businesses and American manufacturing in America. When Main Street is strong, our country is strong.

We are going to keep doing what works and stop what doesn't, what actually hurts. That is how we get this economy moving in the right direction and actually being dedicated to the needs of the American people and the economy that drives it.

Mr. Speaker, my flight was delayed at both ends. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 115 and YEA on Roll Call No. 116.

Mr. Speaker, in northeast California, as in other parts of the country, we are seeing an introduction of a wolf population that is devastating not only to the beef industry and the at least 200 spring calves but also to the rest of the wildlife in the neighborhood.

Places like Sierra County, Siskiyou County, Modoc County, Lassen County, and Plumas County are being devastated by this introduction of the gray wolf.

This is somehow dressed up under the idea that it is endangered, yet the delisting of the gray wolf in the United States has been long sought where we can find tens of thousands of them in upper Midwest States and lower Canada.

Why is it that we have the logic that they have to have one in each county of each State for them to somehow be seen as not endangered anymore?

They are indigenous to a particular area. They do not need to be introduced and devastating the landscape, devastating the people where kids have to sit in cages at bus stops in order to be safe.

Just recently, an elk was chased right up onto the front porch of a constituent in northern California, killed,

and partially devoured right on the property, right next to the building.

Does this mean we are getting a better quality environment because of that? Does that mean we are getting public safety? No. It is getting worse.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I appreciate the opportunity to present and to carry this Congressional Review Act that is, indeed, trying to keep some reality involved in the listing of species, as well as the overall operations of government and forming of regulations.

Mr. Speaker, in support of H.J. Res. 78, we want to block the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's misguided decision to list the San Francisco Bay-Delta population of the longfin smelt as being endangered.

What we have is actual evidence. Former director of Stanford's Center of Conservation Biology wrote a piece on this listing, including these highlights:

The Fish and Wildlife Service abandoned its allegiance to

using the best available scientific information.

The proposed listing ignores salient information gaps and

shrugs off technical peer-reviewed criticisms that go to the

heart of the argument for listing the species.

To list this species, the Fish and Wildlife Service

employed unreliable data, presented results from analyses

that cannot be justified, and made troubling predictions for

the fate of the fish that are built on flawed assumptions

akin to a house of cards.

The Fish and Wildlife Service used piecemeal data to try

and establish population trends and size of this using

detection methods not even designed for longfin smelt to

justify its action.

Basically, there is no science, and this has long been sought by environmental groups since they have run out of the regular smelt after tens of millions of acre-feet of water have flowed out to the delta.

Indeed, they need to be looking more at the issues going on with the effluent coming out of bay area cities from underpowered sewer systems that affected the delta so negatively and not some idea that farmers are getting too much water.

At a point where farmers have now just gotten bumped up to a 50 percent allocation here the other day by State and Federal water managers, we are seeing that it is going to negatively affect the food supply not only for California and its production but for the whole country.

Mr. Speaker, we have statistics that show that the amount of water flowing into the delta is hardly being tapped. Indeed, 80 percent of it goes right on out of the delta into the Pacific Ocean.

It is interesting to hear my colleague from the north coast talking about rebuilding infrastructure as part of a solution that we should be talking about here.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about it a lot, and hopefully we can move the ball on it. We have an opportunity to build Sites Reservoir, which would provide 1\1/2\ million acre-feet of new storage; and raise Shasta Dam by 18 feet, which would provide 600,000 acre-feet of new storage.

If we would operate the pumps in the delta, we would fill the San Luis Reservoir that would be available to the Central Valley. It came up 200,000 acre-feet short this year, which is about the same amount as what they are predicting this listing will cause to short the Central Valley farmers down there if this listing is allowed to happen.

Instead, we get more and more water being demanded for environmental purposes, which really doesn't fulfill an environmental purpose. Instead, the blame gets shifted to something else: talk about tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, we are tariffed so heavily, almost 300 percent, on our dairy products that are going into Canada. Something needs to be done for a reset. Rice into Japan will be up to 700 percent at some point. Tariffs need to be looked at, but that is not this conversation.

The longfin smelt is being used as the latest weapon to take water away from farmers and take water away from people. We grow some of the richest crops in the great Central Valley of California--tomatoes, pistachios, and almonds--and they will be denied to the whole country. They will not come from somewhere else unless we import them with lower quality standards, et cetera.

We have, indeed, a lot going on here that is not really truthful. It is sad to hear my colleague from the north coast. Although we are in parallel districts, the First District and the Second District, it seems like we are in parallel universes when I hear him starting to talk about defending agriculture because it is these policies: introduction of wolves; not rebuilding water infrastructure but tearing down dams on the Klamath that now causes people to be subject to flooding; the water allocation of the Scott and Shasta Valleys being taken away by some emergency drought declaration at the same time as they are being flooded; and one thing after another being taken away from farmers and given to wolves instead.

My Democratic colleagues want to introduce 1,700 new grizzly bears into California as one of their ideas, which would devastate livestock. The ideas that are coming out of this building and the regulatory buildings here are the ones that are choking off agriculture, making food more expensive, and taking away options for people to buy great California-grown products instead of having to import them.

It is coming from here. It is certainly not the fault of what the Trump administration is trying to do in addition to building more water reservoirs and having more water available for people.

Why was it that delta pumps were able to fill San Luis Reservoir 2 years ago to the brim, to the full mark, and they can't for the last 2 years?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the additional time.

Mr. Speaker, it is because of additional water flows that are demanded by the environmental left and certain Representatives in this building. A lot of times, they get them. It seems that the courts are stacked against farmers against this, but we have to fight back.

One tool that we have is H.J. Res. 78, to review what government does and hold it accountable for when it does last-minute, unscientific pronouncements. In this case, it is yet another species that my Democratic colleagues use as a weapon against agriculture and against people's needs.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time on this.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next for morning- hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a great American hero, Private James ``Stanley'' Mitchell, who volunteered to serve our great Nation in World War II and died 82 years ago in a Japanese POW camp in Luzon, Philippines. Private Mitchell's remains were located and identified and have been returned to his family, a testament of his courage and sacrifice.

Private Mitchell was born in Joplin, Missouri on October 2, 1917. The family would move frequently during his early life, eventually settling down in Hamilton City, California.

On March 4, 1941, Private Mitchell enlisted in the United States Army and was deployed as part of the 31st Infantry Regiment on assignment to Clark Field in Luzon, Philippines. Ten months after his initial deployment to the Philippines, Imperial Japanese Forces would bomb Pearl Harbor, bringing the United States and all her territories into World War II. Japanese forces begin a full-scale invasion of Luzon, Philippines on December 22, 1941. The 31st Infantry Regiment stood defiant and courageous against overwhelming Japanese forces until their surrender on April 9, 1942.

Private Mitchell joined approximately 72,000 American and Filipino prisoners of war (POW) on a 65-mile march known as the Bataan Death March. These brave souls endured torture, starvation, disease and ultimately death at the hands of the Japanese forces. By the end of the march, only approximately 52,000 American and Filipino POWs remained live.

Private Mitchell and many surviving POWs would be held at the Cabanatuan POW Camp. Conditions would not improve for these courageous men. On January 7, 1943, Private Mitchell succumbed to starvation and disease, dying at a weight of only 70 pounds. Private Mitchell was buried in one of the many mass graves at the camp.

The Cabanatuan POW Camp would be liberated on January 30, 1945, with only 489 POWs remaining alive. Unfortunately, 2,656 brave American POWs had lost their lives at the camp.

Private Mitchell was the first World War II casualty from Hamilton City. His status as a POW brought great sadness and pain to his family. The news of his death brought devastation to his parents and family. His remains were exhumed and identified in September of 2024. Private Mitchell's remains were brought home to the United States on May 3, 2025, and he will be laid to rest between his parents at the Los Molinos Cemetery, in Northern California.

Private Mitchell's story and sacrifice will not be forgotten. His legacy and impact to our community will continue to be felt. His return will bring closure to his family. God bless Private Mitchell and welcome home.

Madam Speaker, I am a California resident, and I am also a California businessman. We have a farm in northern California where we actually operate three highway trucks, and I would probably only have two except for State mandates make it to where one of my older trucks, which is a fine-running vehicle, is only allowed 1,000 miles per year to operate under an agricultural situation. Consequently, I had to buy yet another truck that was newer than 2011 in order to be able to comply with these mandates.

Soon after, when the State had said: Well, if you buy a 2011 or newer engine-powered truck, you are going to be good for a long time. That is until they change their mind and take away the mandate. What many people did was purchase, in good faith, vehicles they thought would last for maybe 20 years, 25 years, or whatever their needs are. I am especially talking about mom-and-pop operations that don't buy new trucks with massive turnover like operations with many, many trucks in their fleet that run them 500,000 miles and turn them over.

What we have with these mandates is more and more difficulty to even operate trucks. There is an old saying: If you have got it, a truck brought it. In California, you may not be getting it anymore. By the time 2035 comes around, and they ban the sale of internal combustion engine trucks and cars in California, what are we going to replace them with? That takes no account for the great strides that are made to make cleaner running diesel engines in all these vehicles and gas engines in automobiles and pickups.

With the technology, we have to add this DEF fluid to our vehicles to make sure that they are running in compliance. What credit is given as a transition to more and more of these trucks meeting this mandate helps deliver cleaner air quality? No credit is given. It is just more mandates. CARB sits down there in Sacramento thinking up more and more mandates all the time, taking away barbecues, gas-powered stoves, and gas-powered everything, even gas-powered generators. I still don't know what you are supposed to replace a generator with if you can't power it on gas or diesel when the power goes off. It is ridiculous what is coming down the pike.

Where California goes, there are several other States that want to follow as well because they think we have got it going on with these mandates.

They want us to take away these trucks and take away the ability to have diesel-powered vehicles. Diesel, like it or not, is going to power things for many decades to come. The technology for batteries and the generation of electricity that is needed to keep all these going on the grid--if you have, say, a neighborhood where three or four cars in three or four homes are electric vehicles requiring that power supply, you would have to change the power lines and the transformer in the neighborhood by the time just a few of these vehicles are in place due to the intense load that is required to fast-charge these vehicles; let alone a truck fleet in a particular area. If there are 50 trucks or whatever in an operation all required to be on electricity and charging overnight, the grid people are going to laugh at you on that.

This is at the same time as they are removing hydroelectric dams in California. They may not renew the nuclear power plant in San Luis Obispo, also known as Diablo Canyon. They got a 5-year extension a couple of years ago. Is it going to go beyond that? That plant alone represents 9 percent of the power grid in California.

They keep taking away the generation of power. They don't permit the new generation of power except for wind and solar. They want to turn farms in the Central Valley into solar farms perhaps. Take a look at the Ivanpah installation down in southern California where two-thirds of that is being shut down. They have the giant tower and the mirrors all pointed at it. That one is being shut down due to economics. If the economics on renewable power don't work out, where is the power going to come from?

Who is going to drive the trucks? How will we get deliveries when these vehicles aren't purchased? The price of these is 2.5 times what a regular truck costs. If people would pass my legislation on the Federal excise tax, making the $20,000 to $30,000 of additional tax, a tax that was put in place to pay for World War I, on the price of new trucks, maybe people would have a little more relief.

We do not need this mandate. The Federal Government should not give California more waivers. It was okay back in the 1960s when things were bad in southern California, but air quality has improved vastly due to these vehicles and other measures that have been taken.

Agriculture has the ability to burn its refuse, clippings, tree removal, and all that. That has been banned in the San Joaquin Valley now. There have been a lot of strides or moves made. Yet, they are never satisfied at CARB in Sacramento.

Other States will monkey see, monkey do what California does to the detriment of all consumers. All prices of goods delivered, the prices of production where trucks haul raw materials, and then the finished products from field or forest or mine to be manufactured or refined will just go up across the board.

We don't have the battery technology to have these trucks go more than really 150 miles, whereas diesel-powered trucks, depending on how many tanks they have, can go 400 miles.

Mr. Speaker, we need to reject the waivers.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for leading this.

For my dear colleague from Michigan who just spoke on that, I greatly appreciate she got most of the way there. Indeed, why we have the Congressional Review Act is to reel in out-of-control bureaucracies and bad mandates that come down the pike. That is why we have H.J. Res. 88, led by my good colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

We are supposed to take back when government gets out of control. In this case here, people are not going to have control of their automobile choices. We see, with the mandate coming down the pike here, that by 2026--that is next year. This current model year is almost over with, 2025 vehicles. By 2026, it will be a requirement of 35 percent of vehicles sold--in one more model year in these States, 35 percent.

At the current rate in California and New York, about 10 percent of these vehicles are being sold. How the heck are you going to jump to 35 percent in a year?

Nobody wants to buy these cars. Mr. Speaker, as you see when you go talk to the dealers, they have to have a certain number of vehicles that meet these mandates on the lot that aren't selling in order to get a Jeep or something you want that has a gas-powered engine in it or a pickup with a bigger engine it. They have to sell a certain number of these other ones to meet the quota. They can't sell the other stuff because they are not what people want to buy.

When talking about vehicles to be replaced anyway, these cars cost half again as much as a similar size, similar used car. Who is supposed to afford that?

Go down the supply chain here. People with a lower income probably primarily buy used vehicles. There is going to be a bigger premium on used cars on the market that are going to be less available to people with more moderate incomes.

As it is, we are going to see the $7,500 incentive done under the IRA disappear soon. When we are talking $14,000 more per vehicle anyway, and that $7,500 incentive is gone to people who can file a tax return with all of those complications on it, because there is a large standard deduction, thanks to the JOBS Act legislation a few years ago--most people can't even take advantage of that if it is there.

What are we talking about? By 2035, 100 percent of these cars are going to be battery-powered. What were we just saying a while ago about the power grid? What were we talking about with all of these data centers coming online using mass amounts of new electricity? When are we going to talk about that we can't produce power plants in this country? We can hardly get out of our tracks to build nuclear plants. They are tearing down hydroelectric plants in my district that make CO2-free power. We love to stop CO2, right? That is what this whole electric deal is about.

Let's go back to 1990 in California, when CARB, the California Air Resources Board, decided we are going to require that by the year 2000, 10 percent of all vehicles have to be zero emission.

What happened? Mr. Speaker, go to your dealers there and you see these little golf carts with license plates slapped on them that are pretending to be automobiles. They are trying to get those into the market. Nobody is going to buy that. Nobody is going to drive that. They are not even safe.

CARB had to relent on that year 2000 goal, and they are going to have to relent again on this and on the trucks because it isn't realistic for real consumers, for real people. They don't want these cars unless they can get a sticker and drive in the fast lane in California on that, but that is a narrow group.

One of the automobile reps I talked to drives from Sacramento up to Oroville and then has to go on up to Susanville. He is unsure if the pickup he has, which is a new electric pickup, is going to be able to make the whole trip. They are uncertain whether he can cover that trip, about a little over an hour here and about an hour and a half up the mountain to get the job done.

People have uncertainty about even being able to rely on these vehicles. We have all heard the story about someone who bought a new pickup. I think he is from Michigan. He bought a camper, the whole works. It was to take his family on vacation. He made it about two States away. He had to stop and recharge so often that he finally took the truck to a different dealership, a different brand, and traded it in and bought another one with a diesel and finished the family vacation on that.

This is the stuff they are going to put normal consumers through with these mandates, and it is going to happen in many States. A lot of times people in an industry, auto manufacturers, they want to just have one standard. They will take the worst standard that affects everybody, like food labeling and stuff, and foist it upon everybody else.

We need to pass H.J. Res. 88 and give people a choice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about the resolution I have to overturn the listing of the San Francisco Bay Delta population of longfin smelt, which is being done under the Endangered Species Act.

This listing was not based on sound science. It was forced through by a lawsuit and a court order at kind of the last minute in the Biden administration. Of course, that is not the way environmental decisions should be made.

This was done on the heels of the regular delta smelt, which for over 30 years has had tens of millions of acre-feet of water shoved out through the delta to supposedly sustain that delta smelt to no effect because they have been trawling the area, looking for the fish, trying to find the fish, and haven't found any since I believe 2017.

The Endangered Species Act has been weaponized for decades to shut down water deliveries, halt forestry, and cripple farming, ranching, and mining across the West. The Biden administration and activist judges have turned the law into really a political tool.

The Fish and Wildlife Service overlapped this new listing on top of delta smelt regulations that already sends valuable water out to the Pacific Ocean in droves. It hurts farmers, families, and every Californian who depends on a stable water supply. We must stop these bureaucrats.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore) for leading us here tonight.

Picking up on what he said, we are in the first 100 days of a new administration. I have to harken back just 101 or more days ago to what had been going on the last 4 years.

The first thing that comes to mind is the border situation. As my colleague was saying, how does that make a lick of sense with what was going on there? We are allowed and supposed to have a sovereign border if we are going to confine ourselves to the country. In the days previous and in the formation of this country, for people to immigrate here, they had to bring a skill. They had to bring sponsorship. They needed to bring something that added to the growth of America.

That wasn't seen at the time as racist or hateful or anything else. People from all backgrounds and from pretty much any continent were coming over here and being part of that. We had immigration laws that made sense. We really have never lost our immigration laws. They weren't being enforced a lot in the last 20-plus years or so.

When we talk about common sense, it just went out the window on that issue for a long time. We are gaining it back. We have seen that the illegal border crossings, by and large, across the country have dropped by 95 percent under President Trump. We knew that is what we were going to get, and that is what voters asked for.

It didn't take a bunch of new, comprehensive immigration laws to do that. It took enforcing the laws we had on the books. It took enforcing and having the will to say: No, we are not going to do this anymore.

Guess what? We are still pro-immigrant. It just means legal immigration. It means following our rules. It means coming through the ports of entry and applying under the various ways one would apply for particular visas--student visas, tourist visas, work visas. Apply and ask for permission.

We lock our cars when we park in this town. We lock the front door on our houses when we leave. We are allowed to have gates on the entry to this country. I say gates with well-oiled hinges. Somebody staffing them will then say if an immigrant has his papers, come on in. If he doesn't have his papers, he has to go back and apply. There is a process for that.

Why is that so tough? When I see interviews on TV, talking with President Trump or Tom Homan or anybody, the interviewers just don't seem to grasp that--well, so you are against immigration, you are against people coming across. No, it is legal immigration. Follow the legal process. What is so tough to grasp about that? It just amazes me how that isn't mentioned. It is the duplicitous of the media and sometimes the interviewers on that, they are just not able to quite connect those dots.

When we talk about the 95 percent, we also note that the number of got-aways, the individuals who intentionally avoid detection, pose some of the greatest dangers. The number of got-aways is also down by 99 percent.

We have seen lately the reporters down on the border can't find a single illegal immigrant coming across these times. Indeed, we have seen some dramatically good results. The catch and release is over.

Since taking office, President Trump has deported more than 139,000 illegal immigrants. We hear a lot of caterwauling about that. Oh, the humanity. It is horrific. Well, he hasn't done the most yet. Under President Obama, the numbers are probably triple of that only because different Presidents and different parties actually--look at the floor speech or the State of the Union speech, you can go back and listen to President Clinton talk about that years ago. Hillary Clinton has talked about it back before something changed politically and they completely switched on that.

We have had bipartisan support for border control. Go back to 1986, when a deal was struck with Ronald Reagan, the Democrats, and Tip O'Neill and the gang. He allowed for amnesty. It is the ``A'' word now. There is a distrust around striking additional deals like that.

Reagan said, okay, we will give amnesty to the ones that are here-- back in 1986, it was a much smaller number than we now have here illegally--in order to have strong Border Patrol and Border Patrol infrastructure put in place. A stronger fence and all that.

Well, that wasn't fulfilled. We never really got the whole border barrier we needed in order to make it much simpler and easier for our personnel down there to be able to do their job. President Trump is backing that up by having a barrier. Is it perfect? No, Mr. Speaker, no thing is going to be perfect because you build a better mousetrap and somebody finds a way around it. At least it deters the massive tide.

Is it symbolic? Is it actually a good barrier? It is probably both. It also shows that the U.S. is determined to enforce its border and that that alone is going to deter people. They are not going to try it now because President Biden isn't waving everyone in and giving them a free T-shirt.

When we see that 150,000 illegals have been arrested, many of them gang members, we have success. Violent gangs, like MS-13, have been designated as foreign terrorist organizations. Hallelujah, it is time.

What do we see in the news lately? Some of our Democrat colleagues are bending over backwards to go to El Salvador to bring a guy home. How about half of that effort being expended over the Israeli hostages over there after the horrific Hamas attacks back on October 7 of the previous year?

President Trump has taken these measures. Gang leaders operating in Virginia, Florida, and New York are now in custody and off the streets.

President Trump shut down the Biden-Harris migrant app which had served as a fast pass into the country. Why would we develop an app to make it easier to come into the country illegally?

President Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to speed up deportation and dismantle criminal networks operating on U.S. soil. That is a useful tool that the left is trying to throw out. Hopefully, it will succeed in tests in the court.

Construction of the border wall resumed. More than 85 new miles of barrier are already in place. There is still a lot to do, but at least we can keep it funded and get the job done and aid our border personnel.

Taxpayer-funded goodies for illegal immigrants--luxury hotel stays, food stamps, special college funds--at least at the Federal level--have been eliminated. California is still giving that away as fast as they can. We have a Medi-Cal handout of $9.5 billion to illegal immigrants in the State of California. We are going to hear caterwauling there on some of the other things for cost-cutting measures being done here federally. California could take a long leap towards that just by not funding illegal immigrant activity.

Sanctuary cities are finally being held accountable, as they should. President Trump has taken legal action and moved to cut off Federal support for jurisdictions who refuse to cooperate with immigration enforcement. Why would they not cooperate with Federal law? It is a violation of Federal law. I see more and more local municipalities pushing back against State mandates on this. I commend them for doing so.

Some of my northern California counties have done it. The city of Oroville did it. Siskiyou County has done it. Others have and others will continue to do so.

What it has done is helped to deliver justice. We passed the Laken Riley Act. It is now law. It even got bipartisan support at the end. It is a powerful reminder that this administration will never forget those whose lives were taken by illegal immigrant crime.

This is real leadership. These are promises made. These are promises kept. President Trump is helping to get that done for all of us. For those of us who have been here a lot longer and have battled on this issue, we are seeing common sense applied to our border and so many other things as a result of President Trump's leadership and partnership with the House and the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, my home State of California's vehicle sales mandate removes consumer choice.

Americans are not choosing electric vehicles. They still prefer and rely on internal combustion engine-powered cars.

In most States, EV sales aren't even close to the mandate.

New York, for example, is supposed to reach 35 percent electric vehicle sales by 2026, but they are barely at 10 percent today.

The Biden-Harris EPA granted these waivers after they lost the election in a clear attempt to lock in California's extreme electric vehicle requirements in their environmental agenda.

These mandates don't just affect California. Other States copy as well. They impact every State by raising vehicle prices and limiting what Americans can buy.

The policy threatens jobs across this country and forces companies to spend more to replace their fleets.

Our electric grid cannot handle the surge in demand for mass EV adoption. Neighborhoods with three or more houses in the neighborhood that have these electric vehicle chargers, have to replace the wires and transformers on those poles in that neighborhood. The infrastructure is not there. The desire by the market isn't there, yet the government is trying to force this mandate on people.

H.J. Res. 88 restores fairness and protects Americans' right to choose the vehicles that work for them.

Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the first 100 days of the Trump administration.

President Trump's efforts have secured the border. Southwest border apprehensions have decreased by 94 percent since March of last year, from 137,473 in March of 2024 to only 7,181 in March of 2025.

Customs and Border Protection encountered 29,000 illegal aliens nationwide last month, down 88 percent from 246,000 encountered in March of last year.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested 32,809 illegal aliens during the first 50 days of the Trump administration, way less than last year. More than 100,000 illegals have been deported.

On the energy front, gas prices are down 6.3 percent and will continue to do so with America First energy policies.

The Consumer Price Index has only increased by 2.8 percent in the last year. Egg prices are down 56 percent.

On jobs, the economy added 10,000 manufacturing jobs, good jobs, during President Trump's timeline here. We will see more jobs and continue with a strong economy.

Mr. Speaker, the March jobs report shows that 228,000 jobs were added last month, far exceeding expectations. Private-sector growth led the way with 209,000 new jobs, nearly double the pre- election average. Wages are rising with hourly earnings up nearly 4 percent over the past year.

Government job dependence is shrinking with only 42 percent of new jobs in government-related sectors, down from nearly 75 percent under the Biden administration. Federal employment dropped by 4,000 as the administration cuts government bloat.

In the 365-day period from the day President Trump was elected, there was a deficit of $2.2 trillion. In the 365 days previous to right now, it is only a deficit of $1.6 trillion. We have a long way to go, but it is a giant improvement.

Construction jobs remain strong, and industrial production is hitting a record high. Manufacturing output has grown nearly 1 percent over the month. Auto production has surged 8.57 percent, and core CPI inflation is at a 4-year low, easing pressure on consumers.

America's economy is back.

Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to pass legislation around here. There is a process. It is not really easy to get elected, whether it is here or the Presidency. There is a lot of power that has been bestowed to those that are elected.

We see more and more lately a situation of one judge who is able to step in and say, oh, I don't like that and set aside an executive order or set aside a law that isn't necessarily even a constitutional problem but more philosophical. That is completely wrong.

A district court judge should not be able to block a national policy just because they disagree with it. Darrell Issa's bill puts an end to nationwide injunctions where one judge, often with a political agenda, overrides the will of the voters and halts policies meant to improve our economy, secure our borders, or cut government waste.

Judges were never meant to act as the veto on the executive branch. Their job is to rule on cases before them, not sweeping national edicts well outside of their judicial district. That is what is happening.

We have seen activist judges block Federal employee reforms, stall border security measures, and obstruct regulatory rollbacks. A single judge in San Francisco even stopped the termination of probationary Federal employees, interfering with efforts to make government more efficient. It is wrong, and we need to pass H.R. 1526.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.