Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is really simple. Don't spend money on stupid things, and don't subsidize biased media.

There are all kinds of media that are biased. They can take care of themselves. MSNBC proves that every single day.

Think about the statement just made about NPR. Uri Berliner, an award-winning journalist who worked for NPR for over 20 years, decided NPR had lost its way and asked a basic question: What is the political affiliation of the editors for NPR in the Washington, D.C., area? Guess what he found? Eighty-seven editors' political affiliation was 87 Democrats, zero Republicans--not 44-43, not 50-37, not 60-27. It was 87-0.

This bill simply says to stop subsidizing--they can make money on their own; all the other media outlets do it--and quit spending taxpayer money, hard-earned taxpayer money, on stupid things.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues know it is a good bill because the left hates it--the left that defunded the police; the left that let 10 million people illegally enter our country in a 4-year time span; the left that wants men to compete against women in sports; the left that lied to us about Benghazi, lied to us about the Hunter Biden laptop, lied to us about President Biden's health; and the left that lied to us about COVID.

The Speaker will remember that. Democrats got to go to the fancy restaurants, but all the people we represent couldn't go to church, couldn't go to work, and couldn't go to school.

The left doesn't like this bill. That tells my colleagues it is a good bill.

This bill is about fundamental conservative principles, regular things that the American people appreciate. This bill cuts taxes. This bill requires work for able-bodied adults in our welfare system. This bill gives school choice to parents. This bill secures the border.

We are the party that believes in letting moms and dads keep more of their money to spend on their goals and their dreams. We are the party that says that if you get taxpayer funds and you are able-bodied, you should work. That is fair to the taxpayers. That is good for our economy. Most importantly, it is good for the recipients.

We are the party that says that parents, regular moms and dads, should get to pick where their kid goes to school so they get the kind of education that will allow them to achieve the American Dream. That is in this bill. This bill secures the border. The primary issue of last fall's election, the issue that decided the election, the issue that put President Trump in the White House and Republicans in control of the Congress, this bill helps secure the border, and President Trump already has it under control.

That is why we should support this legislation. It cuts taxes, requires work for able-bodied adults, empowers parents to pick the school where their kid is going to get the best education, and secures the border like the American people want us to do.

This bill is doing exactly what we told the voters we were going to do, and that is why we should support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Committee on the Budget chairman for his good work on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 30) expressing support for local law enforcement officers.

Mr. 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. Con. Res. 30.

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

Mr. Speaker, this week, we celebrate National Police Week. In so doing, we honor those officers who have been killed in the line of duty, as well as those who bravely serve their communities every single day.

More than 60 years ago, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation that designated May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day and the week in which that day falls as Police Week.

Thousands of law enforcement officers are visiting Washington, D.C., this week to honor their colleagues who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I extend my sincere gratitude to all local law enforcement officers and their families for their sacrifice and their service.

These police officers risk their lives every day to protect our communities, and they do this despite the obstacles and dangers that we all know that they face. Police officers rush into harm's way out of duty and devotion to their sacred oath: ``To Protect and Serve.''

The families of law enforcement officers also bear the burden of service through missed birthdays, school events, and sports games. This resolution is a small way in which we can show our thanks. I encourage all Members to take time to pray, show their support for, and say thank you to our local law enforcement heroes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell), who served in law enforcement as a sheriff, for his work in putting this together and sponsoring the resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: Republicans honor local law enforcement, Democrats defund them. Five years ago this summer, they spent the whole summer doing that. That is all you would hear from Democrats, got to defund the local police. We have been consistent. We have condemned violence every single time it happened whether it was January 6 or the summer of 2020. They haven't.

The summer of 2020, I still remember the guy standing in front of the burning building on CNN saying, this is a mostly peaceful protest. They spent the whole summer trying to defund the police, so don't give us the lecture.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell), the fine gentleman who served in local law enforcement, who was a sheriff, and who knows what it is like to go out there and protect his community, for sponsoring this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, you can try to rewrite history, but it just doesn't work. Let me just read off the Democratic-run cities that did defund the police.

Here is the game the Democrats want. All during the summer of 2020, they were saying: Defund the police. Democratic-run cities all over the country were doing so.

Now they say: Oh, but because crime went up when we defunded the police, we want Federal taxpayers to send us money to make up for the cuts we did there and spent the money elsewhere. That was the game.

If you don't believe me, here is the list:

Austin, Texas, $150 million cut;

Boston, Massachusetts, $12 million cut;

Burlington, Vermont, $1.1 million;

Denver, Colorado, $55 million;

Eureka, California, $1.2 million;

Hartford, Connecticut, $2 million;

Kansas City, Kansas, $42 million;

Los Angeles, $150 million;

Madison, Wisconsin, $2 million cut;

Minneapolis, $8 million;

New York City, $1 billion cut that summer;

Norman, Oklahoma, $865,000;

Oklahoma City, $5.5 million;

Philadelphia, $33 million;

Portland, Oregon, $16 million;

Salt Lake City, $5.3 million;

San Francisco, $120 million;

Seattle, Washington, $69 million;

Washington, D.C., $15 million--we know about the crime that has happened in this city; and of course, in the ranking member's home State of Maryland, Baltimore cut their police department $22 million. Now they are saying: Oh, make sure the Federal money keeps coming.

Look, I am not against some of these grant programs. We will look at all those. However, don't say you didn't defund the police. You did. Everyone knows you did, and you all talked about it, and you cheered it on. For the bad guys who harmed the police that summer when you were encouraging cities to cut the police, you were raising money to bail them out. Your Presidential candidate was raising money to bail them out. You can have all the revisionist history you want. The facts are the facts.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I was referring to that party that you belong to, not you personally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have not said I was for defunding the ATF or the FBI. What I have said, what the American people have said clearly is they don't want these agencies weaponized against the very people they are supposed to serve. We all know about that. Think about this, though, when you think about the FBI's budget, it is like $12 billion. More than half of that budget, more than half of the personnel at the FBI are focused on intelligence and counterintelligence.

I think most Americans probably think the FBI should spend most of its

resources on going after traditional crime, organized crime, bad guys, gang activity. I think that is probably where they think it should be, but, no, they are spending half their budget, half their personnel on surveillance of Americans. I think that is a little different.

How about the ATF? We all know the example of the ATF raiding Bryan Malinowski's home. Bryan Malinowski was the highest paid official in the Little Rock, Arkansas, municipal government. He ran the Bill and Hillary Clinton airport. He was a gun hobbyist. The ATF thinks he has done something wrong. Instead of just going and visiting him, coming to see him, picking him up at his work, taking him back to his house to execute the warrant, the search warrant, no, they had to kick in his door, predawn raid, 10 cars pull up. The first thing you see on the doorbell cam is them putting tape on the camera. Mr. Speaker, 53 seconds later, Bryan Malinowski has been shot in the head and subsequently dies.

I am for these agencies actually serving the taxpayers, not being engaged in things like that. We respect the police and want it done right. At the local level, God bless them. I have not been for defunding them. We are for honoring local police, like this good sheriff, this Member of Congress, and what they do day in and day out. That is what this resolution was about.

The other side, they want to come here and start talking about all kinds of things I didn't intend to. You heard my opening statement. You heard the gentleman's opening statement. However, the other side wants to go start attacking things.

Okay, fine. We are just setting the record straight. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I would emphasize what a fine resolution we have here sponsored by the gentleman from Mississippi, and we do. We all do appreciate the work of our law enforcement men and women who put that uniform on every day, risk their lives to protect our families, our communities, all the things that we care about.

We hope this resolution is a unanimous vote. We hope both sides support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Ohio Military Hall of Fame for Valor will hold a ceremony at the Statehouse in Columbus on Friday, May 2, to mark the induction of its 2025 class. Selection for the Hall of Fame is a high honor that has been accorded to just over 500 Ohioans since 2000. To be considered for induction, individuals must have been decorated for heroic action in a combat situation.

I am honored to commend to the House this year's 19 inductees:

Technical Sergeant Forrest E. Everhalt, Senior

(posthumously), Army, recipient of the Medal of Honor.

Private Philip G. Shadrach (posthumously), Army, recipient

of the Medal of Honor.

Private George D. Wilson (posthumously), Army, recipient of

the Medal of Honor.

Captain Richard Morgan Rees (posthumously), Army, recipient

of the Distinguished Service Cross.

Captain William J. Barthelmas (posthumously), Air Force,

recipient of the Silver Star.

Staff Sergeant Roger LeRoy Coffman (posthumously), Army,

recipient of the Silver Star.

Captain Kenneth W. Cordier (posthumously), Air Force,

recipient of the Silver Star.

Corporal Joseph D. Karam (posthumously), Army, recipient of

the Silver Star.

Private First Class Harrison J. Meyer (posthumously), Army,

recipient of the Silver Star.

Private First Class Elbert Ray Rawlins (posthumously),

Army, recipient of the Silver Star.

Lieutenant Commander Owen W. Huff (posthumously), Navy,

recipient of the Legion of Merit with ``V'' Device.

Lieutenant Commander Matthew S. McGraw, Navy, recipient of

the Legion of Merit with ``V'' Device.

Specialist Donald E. Austin, Army, recipient of the Bronze

Star with ``V'' Device.

Corporal Michael R. Cowles, Army, recipient of the Bronze

Star with ``V'' Device.

Specialist Donald L. Justice, Army, recipient of the Bronze

Star with ``V'' Device.

Corporal Russell G. Little, Junior (posthumously), Marine

Corps, recipient of the Bronze Star with ``V'' Device.

Specialist James E. Moses, Army, recipient of the Bronze

Star with ``V'' Device.

Specialist William L. Vasil, Army, recipient of the Bronze

Star with ``V'' Device.

Sergeant Alex J. Rozanski, Marine Corps, recipient of the

Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with ``V'' Device.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, there are 677 Federal district judges, and they are just that, judges. They are not the President of the United States. They are not the person who put his name on the ballot and ran nationwide, got 77 million votes, won the electoral college, and is head of the executive branch. They are judges, district judges.

I said this in committee. The real question ultimately is who gets to decide: some district judge, or the guy who put his name on the ballot; some bureaucrat, or the guy who ran for the office and got elected by we the people?

That is the fundamental question. Guess what? We just got two decisions from the United States Supreme Court who seemed to reinforce that fundamental principle that the guy who runs and heads the executive branch makes the decision.

The Supreme Court said 2 days ago that they are going to put a hold on the time on this Judge Boasberg and this migrant issue that has been with us for the last 3 weeks.

Then, yesterday, this unelected district judge in California who thinks they get to decide how many probationary employees work in the executive branch, not the guy who heads the executive branch, the Supreme Court said ``no'' to that, those leftwing groups who were seeking standing in that case.

Both decisions are wins for the Constitution, wins for the rule of law, wins for the executive branch, and, maybe most importantly, wins for common sense.

I think I have been pointing this out since Judge Boasberg issued his order when he said: Turn the plane around. Bring back the bad guys. Bring back the illegal migrants in this terrorist organization. Turn the plane around. Bring them back. That makes no sense. It makes no sense, and the American people understand it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Issa for this good piece of legislation that we passed out of the committee, I think, 4 weeks ago. I thank Representative Schmidt, who added the good amendment to it that I think makes a good bill even stronger.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution will allow us to cut taxes, reduce spending, help our national defense, and secure the border, which is exactly what we told the voters we were going to do in the election.

I always say that we make this job way too complicated. It is pretty darned simple. What did Members tell the voters they were going to do when they put their name on the ballot? If they get elected, go do what they said.

The American people elected us, a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate. There were 77 million people who voted for President Trump. We told them what we were going to do. It is now time to do it, and this is step one of that process.

The ranking member referenced the American people. We are remembering the American people, exactly what we told them, and why they elected us. To do all of that, it takes resources, particularly the one that focuses in our committee on securing the border.

It takes resources, and the reason we need so many resources to secure the border is because the previous administration screwed everything up so badly. Day one of the Biden administration, they made three decisions: no more building the wall, no more remain in Mexico, and when migrants get here, they will not be detained but will be released.

When that is done and it is advertised to the entire planet that those are the new policies, everybody comes. There were 10 million people who came, almost the equivalent of the entire population of the State I get the privilege of representing.

Mr. Chairman, to fix that, my colleagues have to find resources, find savings, and do what we are doing in this legislation because it takes personnel. It takes equipment. It takes space. It takes detention beds. It takes judges. It takes lawyers to secure that border and handle what needs to be done to fix what Democrats caused and created.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the good work he has done and the Republican members of the Budget Committee for putting this together.

The gentleman is right. If we don't do this, taxes are going to go up on the families across this great country. I don't want the taxes to go up on the families who I represent in the Fourth District of Ohio. I don't want that to happen.

I want the borders secured. I want to reduce spending because I know we are running deficits in the trillions, and we have piled up $36 trillion in debt. I want to help our national defense because it is still a dangerous world.

I just got back from Israel last week. We know how dangerous it is. They know how dangerous this world is.

This bill is common sense, and it is step one of a three-part process to get us to what we told the American people we were going to do and what they elected us to do. That is why I hope we can pass this.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I thank the chairman again for his good work and his committee's work.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been saying for 2 weeks now, instead of stopping the stupid spending, they attack the guy who is exposing the stupid spending. I think we should maybe get rid of the stupid spending.

Trans comic opera in Ireland, Sesame Street on Iraqi television, I think maybe we should focus on that. No. No. No. We can't do that.

I think this just underscores the fundamental difference between the left and those of us in the Republican Party, those of us who are conservatives.

The left thinks the bureaucrats are smarter than we the people. You have to trust the bureaucracy. You have to trust the experts in the government. I would rather trust the people, the 77 million people who elected President Trump who told us he was systematically going to go through these agencies and identify dumb things where taxpayer money is going to. He told us he was going to do it. The American people understood it. He got elected, and now he is carrying out that mission. Now they are attacking the guy who President Trump has put in charge of this effort.

The bureaucrats who decided Big Bird and Bert and Ernie on Baghdad TV was a good use of taxpayer money, can't question them. We can't do that. We can't question the people in the bureaucracy. We can't question the 108,000 people who work at the Department of the Treasury. No. No. No. They are smarter than the folks President Trump has asked to come in and look at where our tax money is going.

Think about this, the smartest bureaucrat in the history of the world, Dr. Fauci, the things he told us. We weren't allowed to question him for 2 years, and he ran our lives.

Here is the irony: Everything he told us turned out to be false. He told us the virus didn't come from a lab. Yes, it did. We have agencies now that tell us that and confirm that. He told us the vaccinated couldn't get it. He told us the vaccinated couldn't transmit it. He was wrong on both those counts. He told us that masks work. He told us 6 feet social distancing was based on science, but they just made it up.

Here is the kicker: He told us this is the first virus in history where there was no such thing as natural immunity. We can't question him. We have to trust the bureaucracy. I prefer to trust the people.

By the way, remember when they tried to set up a bureaucracy in the government that was going to tell us what we were allowed to say? They actually tried to set up the Disinformation Governance Board as if a bunch of Federal bureaucrats can tell us what we can say, what we can't say, what is information, and what is disinformation. You have to be kidding me.

I will trust the guy who was elected by 77 million Americans. I will trust the Constitution that says: The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States.

Do you know why they did that in the Constitution? Because that is the guy who puts his name on a ballot and has to get votes, not the bureaucracy.

It is not the thousands and thousands of people who think they are so much smarter than us regular folks who just get to vote.

I trust the guy who was elected and the people he has put in charge of this effort. He told us he was going to do it. The American people elected him to do it. Maybe we should focus on stopping the stupid spending. After all, we have a $36 trillion debt.

Finally, I will just say this: It is a good bill by a good Member of our Congress, Mr. Ciscomani. We passed it last year. We should pass it again.

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the opportunity to share positive news about young people from Ohio's Fourth Congressional District. Today, I am pleased to commend to the House thirteen high school students who are being honored for their outstanding leadership skills and volunteerism.

On February 5, the Noon Optimist Club of Lima will recognize Shyanna Fugatt, Caiden Garlock, Hale Hensley, Kaiya Hinebaugh, Bailey Hoover, Emma Hunley, Emily Long, Jadin Miller, Carder Orr, Cara Schwartz, Moriah Szuch, Lane Wildermuth, and Diego Williams at its annual youth appreciation luncheon. These students were each nominated by their schools for being good role models for their peers.

I thank the Optimists for their efforts to celebrate the many achievements of these students and am proud to join in the accolades to them. They have my very best wishes for continued success in their lives in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is real simple. This bill helps the people who grow our food. This bill helps people who were devastated by hurricanes this past fall. This bill funds the government at levels the Democrats agreed to, to keep the government open over the holidays.

Why the Democrats oppose this, I have no idea. I have no idea.

Let's vote ``yes'' and spend at the levels everyone agreed to. Then in 3 months, we can have the debate and figure out where we are going from there, but this is a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

My colleagues should think about the minority's argument. The argument is very simple: We can't do it now because Trump won. We have to wait 4 years to fix something everyone knows needs to be addressed, but we can't do that. We have to wait 4 years because we don't like what the people chose.

Mr. Speaker, the people spoke loudly and clearly. President Trump won all seven swing States. He won 30 of the 50 States. He won the popular vote. The Democratic argument is: We can't do what the people want.

Even though we haven't addressed this in 20 years, after a population increase of 50 million people in our country, having hundreds of thousands of pending civil cases, the Judicial Conference saying we need it, and the bill coming out of the Senate unanimously, nope, we can't do it because Trump won. That is the argument of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

The people have spoken.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to be as fair as possible. What the chairman did on this bill was great work. It allows 66 judgeships over the next 10 years. That will be three different Presidents who are going to get to weigh in on this. Six different Congresses are going to be in session over that timeframe.

In the first batch, I think California receives seven judges. Half of the first batch, 22 or 25 of the first judges that President Trump will get to appoint, come from States where both Senators are Democrats. It can't be any more fair. The minority just doesn't like what the American people did. That is the argument of the Democrats.

I say we pass this thing and address this situation that everyone knows needs to be addressed. We need more judges. Everyone understands that. It is bipartisan. When the Judicial Conference met, Republican and Democratic judges were all for it. They didn't say that they don't like what the people did. They just said let's fix what needs to be fixed in our judicial system.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation. The chairman has worked very hard on it. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) for putting this together. It is always appropriate to take time to honor excellence and honor real achievement, and that is Kelly Armstrong's tenure here in the United States House of Representatives.

There is the old line that there are folks in politics who you wish weren't. Sometimes, I say that those are Democrats. That gets a laugh, typically from Republicans. Then, there are people like Kelly who you are glad chose public service because he has all those qualities that Dusty just talked about, those qualities that make him not just a good legislator, not just a good Congressman, but a good person and a good friend.

There is also the old line that it never hurts to have smart people in charge. Kelly Armstrong is one sharp guy. He understands politics and policy, and from my perspective, he really understands the law and how our legal system is supposed to work and the rights that we are supposed to protect, those fundamental liberties that the people we get the privilege of serving want us to protect.

When you couple smarts and intelligence with hard work, there was not one single hearing I was ever a part of--and I got to serve with Kelly on two different committees--where he was not prepared for the witness, prepared for the cross-examination, prepared for the direct examination, prepared for the markup. He was always willing to do the work so that he could represent the folks back home like you are supposed to.

We all know that this job is a privilege. It is an honor to have this job. In the history of this country, the greatest country ever, only about 12,000 people have ever had the privilege to serve.

Kelly Armstrong also understood that, that he was here fighting for the folks back in North Dakota--the families, the small business owners, the teachers, the truckers, the people working in the fields, the oil fields, the farm fields, the wheat fields. He was representing the folks back home, and that is why you see so many Members here tonight willing to say thank you for doing that.

That is why the folks back home elected him Governor with like 98 percent of the vote or whatever it was. They know the kind of individual that he is. Those same qualities that Dusty Johnson talked about--and that was so well done--he is going to use those same qualities and those same characteristics that he has to continue to fight for the people in his great State.

It has been truly an honor for me and everyone else who is going to talk not only to have the privilege to serve in the Congress but to have the privilege to serve in the Congress that only 12,000 people in the history of this country have ever had and the privilege to serve with Kelly Armstrong, with our friend.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the House during yesterday's two roll call votes. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of both H.R. 8371 (Roll Call No. 466) and H.R. 5658 (Roll Call No. 467).

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues from Ohio and across the country in paying tribute to our friend, former Congressman David L. Hobson, who died on October 6.

Dave was one of the Buckeye State's most respected public servants. He worked on behalf of the people of the Seventh Congressional District for 18 years--and served in the State Senate for eight years prior to that. He took great pride in solving problems great and small on behalf of his constituents.

A longtime member of the Appropriations Committee and a Military Construction cardinal, Dave was a champion of our state's military installations of all types, ensuring that they were in the best position possible to contribute to our national defense.

Dave was himself a proud Ohio Air National Guard veteran, serving during the Berlin Wall crisis. In recognition of his service in and out of uniform, in 2022 he was inducted into the Ohio Veterans Hall of Fame--a high honor accorded to no more than 20 Ohioans each year.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful that men like Dave Hobson are willing to enter the arena and commit their lives to public service. Our prayers are with his wife, Carolyn, their three children, and their grand- and great-grandchildren at this time of sorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to commend to the House the important work of the Lima Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. On November 6, the chapter will rededicate a historical marker in honor of Private Elijah Stites, Lima's sole veteran of the Revolutionary War.

Elijah Stites was born in Essex, New Jersey, in 1758. During the American Revolution, he fought for the Essex County Militia, serving as color bearer at the Battle of Yorktown. In 1788, he and two of his brothers took part in an expedition along the Ohio River, helping to found the settlement of Columbia (modern-day Cincinnati). Later, he settled in Warren County with his wife, Rhoda, and their fourteen children.

Following his death in 1843, Stites was buried in Old Lima Cemetery in Allen County. Seventy years ago, the Lima DAR erected a plaque at the site of the cemetery recognizing him as the city's only Revolutionary War veteran. The organization will rededicate this plaque at a special ceremony on November 6.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Ohio's Fourth Congressional District, I thank the women of Lima's DAR Chapter for putting together this rededication ceremony and for all they do to promote civic education. They are true examples of the DAR's high calling to ``cherish, maintain, and extend the institutions of American freedom.''

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 9106) to direct the Director of the United States Secret Service to apply the same standards for determining the number of agents required to protect Presidents, Vice Presidents, and major Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. 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. 9106.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), my friend, who is the sponsor of this critical legislation.

Mr. Speaker, let me get this straight. Some crazy guy on the left tries to assassinate President Trump, and it is Republicans' fault? That is what we just heard.

Next thing they are going to say is, oh, some crazy guy on the left tries to assassinate President Trump, and it is President Trump's fault. Oh, wait a minute. They said that, too.

This is ridiculous. We have a bipartisan bill that Representative Lawler went to Democrats to work with them on, something that everyone knows needs to happen, and what does the ranking member do? He says it is Republicans' fault. What do Democrats do? What does the left do? They say it is President Trump's fault. You cannot make this stuff up.

After all that President Trump has been through, they go to that. After they spied on his campaign, after Mueller, after impeachment, after they raided his home, after they tried the crazy 14th Amendment idea that the best way to beat him is not let him play the game, not let him go on the ballot--thank goodness the Supreme Court decided 9-0 that was bogus. That is what they do.

I wasn't even going to talk. I was going to let Mr. Lawler, who has done the work on this, handle all this. His remarks were totally bipartisan, not partisan at all. I was just going to let this good piece of legislation that is going to go on suspension--everyone is going to vote for it--just let it happen, but no, they cannot help themselves. It is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), who is working in the proper fashion on a good piece of legislation that will protect, as he indicated in his opening remarks, both former President Trump and Vice President Harris. That is what we want in America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this commonsense, good legislation that is designed to protect our Presidential candidates, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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