Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget for his leadership.

I don't serve on the Committee on the Budget, but my understanding of the Committee on the Budget, perhaps a naive understanding, was that the committee would try to build a responsible budget, to live within its means.

I must say, with deep regret, Mr. Speaker, I have respect for my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, but every time he comes to the floor, it ends up costing us all more money. This bill is going to increase the deficit by $70 billion, $70 billion with a b. That is how much the Republican Committee on the Budget proposes that we spend, that we impair our national deficit.

For all of the Freedom Caucus members, for all of the Republicans who have come to the floor to shed crocodile tears about the fiscal health of our country, understand that in half an hour, you will be voting in favor of a bill that increases the deficit by $70 billion. Mr. Speaker, we ought to reject it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of Eco-Cycle.

Based in Boulder County, Eco-Cycle was founded by a small group of local residents who took it upon themselves to bring recycling into their community. What began with the purchase of old school buses and volunteers driving from one neighborhood to the next, collecting aluminum, paper, and glass, is now one of the Nation's oldest and largest nonprofit recyclers.

Eco-Cycle connects our community through partnerships with residents, governments, schools, businesses, and farmers. It is an institution not only of environmentalism, but of education. Throughout the past 50 years, Eco-Cycle has been a part of several groundbreaking initiatives, including their Zero Waste School program, Green Star Schools program and Environmental Education programs that combined have reached more than 75 schools across Colorado.

Eco-Cycle also, in partnership with the City of Boulder, opened the Center for Hard-to-Recycle Materials (CHaRM), the first facility of its kind in the United States. Recently, they have worked with farmers across Boulder County through the Farmer First program to engineer a closed-loop composting system.

The story of Eco-Cycle is an example for us all, that even small changes made by a few dedicated people can have astonishing results for entire communities. I am honored to represent this storied organization in Colorado's 2nd Congressional District, and I thank the staff and volunteers at Eco-Cycle who do this important work every day. I congratulate them on 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, like tens of millions of Americans, my family has been impacted by the scourge of the terrible disease of cancer.

My wonderful wife, Andrea, over 1 year ago, battled breast cancer for roughly 18 months. I saw up close the grit, the determination, and the strength that she showed daily to beat that terrible disease.

We were very lucky, but for the grace of God, the incredible care that she received from healthcare providers, and the support that we received from family and friends, that she was able to beat that disease. I count my blessings every day.

Mr. Speaker, you can imagine, given my family's journey, my dismay at an announcement that was made just a few days ago by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It didn't receive a lot of fanfare, but the agency issued a new rule to implement President Trump's big, terrible bill, H.R. 1.

This rule, in the fine print, makes very clear that it will become more difficult for cancer patients to be able to stay on Medicaid.

Let me repeat that. This pernicious provision that the Trump administration has now proposed would make it more difficult for cancer patients to be able to access and stay on Medicaid.

The question that I am here today to ask of my colleagues is: Why? Why pursue this rule, knowing, as I know you do, Mr. Speaker, that 1 out of every 10 Americans who has a history of cancer are on Medicaid-- 1 out of 10?

Knowing that this is a matter of life and death for millions of Americans, why pursue this type of terrible provision and policy that we know will result in countless Americans no longer being able to access the care that they need to survive?

It is cruel. It is unconscionable in my view.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today on the floor to make a humble request to my colleagues. There is still time to convince CMS, HHS, and the Trump administration to turn back and to not proceed with this rule. Countless Americans and a variety of organizations dedicated to helping cancer patients have publicly asked the Trump administration--have implored the Trump administration--to reverse course.

There is still time, and I would just encourage my colleagues-- request of my colleagues--implore my colleagues to join us in demanding that the Trump administration do the right thing: Rescind this rule on behalf of countless families in our country who are looking to us in Washington for help.

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank my colleague from New Mexico for her steadfast leadership, for the work that she has done as a champion for the Southwest, the great State of New Mexico, and, of course, her leadership on all matters connected to science. I am grateful to her for her steadfast leadership and commitment.

Mr. Speaker, I also thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the chairman of the full Committee on Natural Resources, for giving me the opportunity to present this important legislation. I certainly echo his remarks, the remarks from Representative Stansbury, and, of course, the remarks of Ranking Member Huffman, as well.

It has been said, but I think it bears repeating: Wildfires do not care if lands are Federal, State, or local. They don't respect manmade boundaries or political jurisdictions.

To give you a sense of what that means on the ground level, I am privileged to represent the great State of Colorado here in the U.S. Congress. I represent a Congressional District that spans 12,000 square miles. It is larger than eight States, most of which are on the Eastern Seaboard.

Over half of my Congressional District is Federal public lands. I represent three national forests, some of the most beautiful parts of our country. When you represent a district as large and as rural as mine, you see up close the damage and the devastation that comes from wildfires.

Colorado is no stranger to wildfires, but in the last several years, we have had some of the most devastating in the history of our State. The Cameron Peak wildfire, the East Troublesome wildfire, these are wildfires that raged across hundreds of thousands of acres of land, Federal land, State land, and local land.

What we have learned during the course of those fires and in the wake of that devastation is the critical need for partnership and for wildfire mitigation that ultimately stretches across these political boundaries.

It is the reason why, in the wake of the Cameron Peak fire in particular, we created the Bipartisan Wildfire Caucus, bringing together folks from across the political spectrum here in Washington, D.C., to try to arrive at solutions like this bill, which I think could make a real difference in saving lives in the Rocky Mountain West, in my Congressional District, across the great State of Colorado, and indeed across the country.

The Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act is simple. It is straightforward. It will help us identify and resolve the challenges that may exist with respect to gaps in wildfire mitigation across land ownership types. It is a simple, straightforward, bipartisan solution, and I am just delighted that we are able to come together on this important bill that I have introduced.

Again, I thank you for your consideration. I hope we can all join in passing this and getting it across the finish line.

Mr. Speaker, John F. Kennedy once said that ``there are few if any issues where all the truth and all the right and all the angels are on one side.''

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those issues.

Five years ago, I stood here on the House floor, just a few feet from where I stand today, as the worst nightmare of our Framers and our Nation's Founders came to life, when rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, this citadel of democracy, attacked police officers, and attempted to enter this Chamber and subvert the peaceful transfer of power.

Donald Trump, on the very first day that he was sworn in, in his second term, pardoned 1,600 individuals who were convicted of crimes connected to January 6. Felons, people who attacked police officers here on Capitol Grounds, he pardoned them, gave them a get-out-of-jail- free card.

Now, 15 months later, he again does the unthinkable. He sues the Federal Government that he administers and attempts to secure a $10 billion shakedown from the IRS. When that fails, when he realizes that that isn't politically palatable, that the American people won't tolerate Donald Trump signing a $10 billion check of their hardworking money to himself, he dispatches the Acting Attorney General, his former personal attorney, to negotiate a so-called settlement.

The outcome? A nearly $2 billion slush fund, where the Department of Justice will pay rioters who attacked our Capitol. These individuals will be paid with your money, the money of hardworking taxpayers.

It is unconscionable. It is corrupt. My Republican colleagues in this Chamber do nothing about it.

Where is the Speaker? Where is Mike Johnson? How can he look the officers who guard him every day in the eye, knowing that the people who attacked those officers will now be paid out of this Trump slush fund?

It is outrageous. If there were ever a time for political courage, now would be it.

There are a handful of Republicans who have said publicly that they abhor what this is, just a handful. The Speaker of the House of Representatives--let me say it clearly--Mike Johnson owes the country an answer.

Will he allow these rioters, these convicted felons who assaulted Capitol Police officers, to be paid with taxpayer dollars out of this slush fund? If not, what does he intend to do to stop it?

We have a bill that has been introduced. I believe it will be bipartisan. There are Members of the U.S. Senate on both sides who are pushing to try to stop this from materializing. The Speaker could end it today.

We are not asking him for much. Show a modicum of courage.

Madam Speaker, first, let me say thank you to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee for his principled leadership.

I think it is well understood by most Americans that Congress is broken and that Congress is deeply dysfunctional. For anyone who is looking for another data point, we have one this morning: the Republican Rules Committee chairwoman criticizing and attacking Democratic members of the Rules Committee for trying to get a vote on Republican amendments.

Think about that. The amendments that we offered last night, that I offered last night, were not mine. They were amendments from members of the Republican Conference. For having the audacity to suggest that Republican ideas and Democratic ideas ought to be considered on the floor of the House, in this august Chamber, we have the Republican chairwoman attacking even the concept that a Democratic Member of Congress could dare introduce a Republican amendment.

For Ms. Boebert, for Mr. Van Orden, for Mrs. Miller-Meeks, for Mr. Steube--go down the line--vote after vote after vote, two-thirds of Republican amendments were rejected by the Republican Rules Committee. Why? What are we afraid of?

This ought to be the Chamber where we can have a reasoned, objective debate and let the chips fall where they may.

I think it is deeply offensive to those Republican Members, to the Members in my conference, and, fundamentally, to the American people to suggest to them that we aren't capable of having that debate.

Just to be clear, on the substance, I have heard a lot of bluster today. It is shocking to me to hear my colleagues lecture us about fiscal responsibility as they preside over the highest debt in the history of the Republic, to hear them pontificate about fighting for working families as they enact the largest cut to SNAP, to food assistance for hungry families, in the history of the country.

Madam Speaker, they sermonize about fraud and corruption while the Trump administration engages in wholesale corruption daily, and they do nothing about it.

President Trump, right now, is suing the IRS for a $10 billion shakedown. Think about it. He is suing the Federal Government that he controls for a check for $10 billion that he hopes to secure that will go to Donald Trump, signed by Donald Trump. Who is paying the check? The American taxpayers. If you want to root out corruption, let's start there.

Madam Speaker, it is absurd. It is unconscionable. It is outrageous.

I just say to the gentleman from Georgia, whom I respect, I understand his arguments on the merits of some of these bills, but spare us the pious lectures, please, especially about corruption, not while President Trump is suing the Justice Department, suing the IRS, and trying to secure more money from hardworking taxpayers in our country, please.

For my Republican colleagues who are debating whether to vote on this procedural rule, just remember that when you had an important issue that you wanted debated on the House floor, your Conference rejected that debate. If you are interested in pesticide immunity or the regulation of field trip forms for middle schoolers, yes, they have you covered. This rule encompasses all of that. If you have a particular issue that is important to your constituents here, to your district, you are out of luck.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Breckenridge Outdoor Education Center.

Founded in 1976 in Breckenridge, Colorado, the Breckenridge Outdoor Education Center (BOEC) has grown into one of the Nation's largest adaptive outdoor recreation organizations. Each year, BOEC serves more than 2,000 individuals--including people with disabilities, veterans and their families. The dedicated instructors and volunteers at BOEC work to ensure that individuals of all abilities can experience the confidence, independence, and joy that come from the outdoors.

Colorado's mountains, rivers, and public spaces draw people from around the world to experience the beauty of the outdoors. Through its innovative adaptive programming, BOEC has helped ensure that individuals with disabilities, who have historically faced barriers to outdoor recreation, can experience opportunities to explore and connect with Colorado's natural environment. This includes programs for veterans that honor their service and promote healing, resilience, and community.

I am honored to represent this storied center in Colorado's 2nd Congressional District, and I thank the staff and volunteers at the Breckenridge Outdoor Education Center who do this important work every day. Congratulations on 50 years.

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

Let me first just say congratulations to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Roy) for congratulating himself. It is a special thing here in the House of Representatives. Apparently, if you work hard enough, you can introduce a resolution congratulating yourself and your colleagues for the resolutions or the bills that you have passed. It is a participation trophy, a Mike Johnson participation trophy, that my colleague from Texas is a proud recipient of along with the other members of the House Republican Conference.

Madam Speaker, it has been 15 months now, 15 months since this Republican majority and the President were elected into office. For nearly a year and a half, Republicans have presided over what is now widely considered to be one of the least productive Congresses in the modern history of our country.

Since President Trump took office, only 86 pieces of legislation have been signed into law. Of course, of those 86, many bills have harmed tragically, profoundly the American public.

Fifteen million Americans have lost access to health insurance since President Trump took office. Millions of Americans are going hungry because of lost SNAP benefits that my colleagues are so proud to have enacted. The country is now involved in yet another deeply unpopular war in the Middle East.

President Trump campaigned on lowering gas prices and no new wars, he said. Of course, that couldn't have been further from the truth.

Last week I stood in this exact same spot and I posed a very simple question, Madam Speaker: Would Republicans continue to waste our time on self-congratulatory, commemorative, meaningless resolutions, saluting themselves, applauding themselves?

Apparently, that was a rhetorical question. We have our answer. The answer is H. Res. 1182. I encourage everyone watching to go online and read the resolution that we are here to debate this week, ``recognizing the work of the House of Representatives in the 119th Congress.''

This is what Republicans choose to spend their time on: resolutions congratulating themselves, giving themselves a pat on the back, participation trophies. It is an utter absurd waste of time, and it is illogical.

It is nonsensical that Republicans would choose to spend their time for the second week in a row on a resolution that does nothing, changes nothing, accomplishes nothing, but congratulating themselves for what they would describe as a job well done.

They have the audacity to suggest that they are supporting rural communities. I represent a district that is one-third rural. Let me tell you, families are struggling in northern and western Colorado as a result of the policies that the Republican Conference have implemented, as a result of President Trump's reckless and extreme agenda.

It is no wonder that President Trump is deeply unpopular, the most unpopular President in the modern history of our country.

I simply say to you, Madam Speaker, that I suspect we will have some debate about the underlying bills that my colleagues have introduced and are asking this august Chamber to consider, bills that weaken a variety of different environmental standards, bills that weaken protections for endangered species. They are not the kind of matters that are coming up at my townhalls in Colorado. Perhaps my colleague from Texas has a different experience in his district.

What I am confident of is that no citizen in our country, no Republican--I am not talking about the politicians here in Washington, D.C. I am talking about their voters--would think that it would be a prudent use of our time to pass self-congratulatory resolutions.

Honestly, I hope if there are folks watching, Republicans watching this--I understand we will have principled disagreements about a wide variety of policy matters and proposals that this House ought to consider, but just understand something: They are squandering their majority.

They are not here debating immigration or gas prices or healthcare costs or any number of priorities. They are not here debating legislation that, frankly, I am likely to oppose, but nonetheless would be legislation and priorities that Republican voters might care about. They are not here debating that. We are here wasting time handing out another participation trophy to the 218 Members of the House Republican Conference.

Madam Speaker, I ask my friend, my colleague on the other side of the aisle, it may just be easier next time to put this into a press release. Put it into a letter. We will help you and that way we can get back to the business of the House.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I will say with respect to the shutdown of DHS, I find it exceedingly rich that my colleague would say what he said when, last night, he voted against an amendment in the Rules Committee that would have enabled this body to consider the bill that passed the United States Senate twice on a unanimous basis to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

Ted Cruz didn't object. Mike Lee didn't object. No Member of the United States Senate objected to that bill. If it were put on the floor for a vote, it would pass with an overwhelming two-thirds majority today.

He knows it. You know it, Madam Speaker. So, spare me these complaints that somehow Democrats are responsible. It is contradicted by the clear facts and procedural history.

Madam Speaker, I will also say, with all respect to my colleague, that the gentleman covered a lot of topics: immigration, Joe Biden, gas prices, and Joe Biden again. What is fascinating is that the resolution that the gentleman has offered, or, rather, that he is being asked to debate today, has nothing to do with any of it.

``Resolved, That the House of Representatives, through policies . . . has demonstrated support for the prosperity and economic growth of the United States.'' They are saluting themselves. What are we doing here?

Again, I understand that the gentleman from Texas does not decide what bills we debate on the floor, so I am talking to Speaker Johnson. If he wanted to, he could put a bill on the floor today to pay TSA agents. He could put a bill on the floor regarding healthcare costs. We could spend all week debating hundreds of bills that have been introduced by Democratic Members and Republican Members. He has decided to force the House to vote on this press release instead for the second time.

What is this obsession with the House recognizing House Republicans? We get it. They are proud of themselves. Everyone understands that. Can we move on?

That, to me, is the absurdity of what we are debating here on the floor today. I am hopeful that this will be the last week, but I am not optimistic.

Last week, I thought it was a joke. I said that maybe next week, we will debate a resolution congratulating House Republicans for passing the congratulatory resolution that they passed last week. Apparently, that was not a joke.

If the Speaker is listening, I didn't mean that literally. I think we should stop with the self-congratulatory resolutions so that Mr. Roy and I can actually debate the underlying policies and the challenges that are facing the country.

Yet, this is not that.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Tran), I just will explain that if we defeat the previous question, I intend to offer an amendment to the rule to adopt the Senate amendment to H.R. 7147, which was and is the bipartisan Senate compromise bill that I just referenced a few moments ago that the Senate unanimously passed twice now.

I understand Mr. Roy is vehemently against that bill. I get it. I understand that he believes that the bill that Mike Lee and Ted Cruz didn't object to doesn't satisfy his ideological goals. I understand that.

Yet, I suspect that the vast majority of the Republican Conference would pass that bill today if we had an opportunity to. The good news is that we hope to create that opportunity by ultimately defeating the previous question and enabling the House to be able to consider that bill.

Spare us more debates on commemorative resolutions, and let's fund the government.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, a lot to respond to. Apparently, my colleague from Texas wants the American people to believe that the reason they are paying astronomically high prices for gas is because the protections for bald eagles and humpback whales are too strong; that we need to weaken protections for endangered species, and lo and behold, we do that, gas prices will drop. It has nothing to do with the war in Iran. It couldn't possibly be connected to the unconstitutional war that the President has decided to wage. It must be the protections for bald eagles. I am sure that is the case.

Give me a break. The American people know better.

They have the audacity to lecture the House, lecture their colleagues on the other side of the aisle about affordability when, right now, everything is getting more expensive.

For families back home in Colorado, the families that I am privileged to represent, times are tough. Costs for everything are going up. Health insurance, car insurance, appliances, gasoline, you name it, the price is going up.

I am sure it will come as great solace to those families that House Republicans have decided this week that the best way to address it is to pass a resolution congratulating themselves for the work that they have done. I am sure that is going to solve the problem. Republicans are on the case.

Again, with all respect to my colleague, I think he has been given an impossible assignment today: to defend that resolution. I suppose that is why he focused on some of the other bills that we are considering today, because that resolution is indefensible.

I suspect my Republican colleagues aren't necessarily watching today. I think me and my colleague from Texas are the only two Members of Congress in this Chamber. Nobody else is here--oh, of course, the Speaker as well--three Members. There is nobody else who will be here to debate this resolution.

I hope that some of my Republican colleagues, perhaps, may watch some of this and maybe decide tomorrow to vote against the rule because voting for the rule is an endorsement of Speaker Johnson's strategy to waste everyone's time, to waste our time, and to waste your time, and fundamentally, more than anything else, to waste the American people's time when there are real issues of consequence that merit our attention, our scrutiny, our inquiry, and our work.

The best way to stop this Chamber from debating meaningless and needless self-congratulatory resolutions is for a few Republicans to vote against the rule and to suggest that maybe there are some other issues that they would like this body to consider.

I hear a lot--you see all of this on social media all the time--my Republican colleagues who will demand votes on this legislation and that legislation, a laundry list of Republican priorities, none of which the House is considering, none of it. I guess we will find out, but I look forward to--I don't look forward, actually. I bemoan the fact. I suspect maybe Mr. McGovern will be managing that rule next week when we do the congratulatory resolution on the resolution for the last resolution. We will have someone else debate that one because I suspect Mr. Roy and I will have grown tired of engaging in this debate.

In any event, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would just say the approach that my friend from Texas describes is wrong and imprudent and whatever adjectives he might characterize it as. That is the approach that Senate Republicans took, so the argument is best made to your colleagues in the upper Chamber. Republicans control the Senate, not Democrats. They passed that bill. They sent it here to the House, not once, but twice.

I understand that my colleague from Texas opposes that bill, and he has explained the reasons why he opposes it. I believe, as I said previously, that the vast majority of this House would vote in favor of that bill, which is why it ought to come up for an up-or-down vote. Let the chips fall where they may, no pun intended.

I will say this, Madam Speaker: I have been keeping meticulous count. I have a little, I guess you could call it, Biden bingo card here. I like to keep track. My colleague from Texas has mentioned Biden six times, six times and counting, in the last couple minutes.

I get it. I understand. He does not like Joe Biden. I understand. The message is received. Joe Biden isn't President anymore. Republicans have been in charge for 16 months. Republicans have had the majority for 16 months. Republicans have had complete control in Washington, the Senate, the Presidency.

What do Republicans have to show for it? Republicans have meaningless resolutions, whereas clause after whereas clause: We are wonderful. We have passed this resolution. We passed this bill. We are frustrated that some Senate Democrats have opposed it.

That is it.

This is 16 months of work.

Again, I would just say to you: I certainly can say very confidently that citizens in our country are not satisfied or pleased or heartened by the way in which this body is functioning. I think my colleague from Texas knows that too.

For the Republican voters out there, for those who believe in the House Republican Conference's policies or, you know, perhaps share their worldview, share their ideology, I am here to tell you they are not pursuing that agenda either. It is not that I disagree in this instance with the substance of what they are pursuing; it is that they are not pursuing any substance; it is that we are just wasting time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Again, my colleague from Texas has spoken with great passion, great passion about any number of issues and policies that he favors and he would like to see accomplished. None of that has anything to do with the resolution that we are debating today. We might as well just--we can set aside a different time for Mr. Roy and I to engage in that debate.

Today, we are debating the resolution that is before us, a resolution that does nothing, achieves nothing, and changes nothing. As I said, it is a participation trophy.

I wish that I would have proposed perhaps a motion to recommit that would maybe change the name of this resolution to the participation trophy. We will have to think of that for next week. I have no doubt I will have another opportunity because I imagine that Speaker Johnson is going to keep this going for the next 7 months.

I am very curious about what participation trophy House Republicans intend to hand out to themselves next week. This week's was--I think rural America was the caveat that they added. Last week's was the big, beautiful bill--or not the big, beautiful bill. That is what Mr. Roy called it today. They changed it last week to the working families bill or something to that effect.

So anyway, we will have to see. I don't know. Maybe next week's resolution will be a commemorative resolution to congratulate House Republicans on the 14-day FISA extension that they passed, and we can spend a half an hour talking about all the ways that House Republicans have changed the country for the better. They are so desperate to convince Americans that they decided that a House resolution is a tool for them to make that case.

Again, there are better ways, Mr. Speaker, to spend this body's time.

I can't imagine that our Framers--that James Madison would have thought that this is how the House of Representatives would be functioning 250 years later. I can't possibly believe that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I regret that our time for debate has come to a close. I will note, as I did last week, the fact that not a single member of the House Republican Conference is willing to come down to the floor and debate in support of these bills is telling. It tells you all you need to know. For those that are watching in the gallery and all of those who might be watching from home on C-SPAN, there are 218 members of the House Republican Conference, 218. None of them, save for my colleague from Texas, were willing to come to the floor to speak in support of the resolution congratulating themselves for the work that they have done this year, not one.

What is even more fascinating, because, of course, as you know, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a long resolution, four or five pages, whereas clause after whereas clause recounting all of the bills and the resolutions that were passed last spring and last fall and last summer, and this winter, they gave this resolution to the newest member of the House Republican Conference. He has been in Congress for like 6 days, I think. He was sworn in last Tuesday or Wednesday.

I get it. I understand why they gave this resolution to the new guy. You know, it is a tough assignment to say your first bill is going to be a bill congratulating the rest of us for a job well done. That is a tough assignment.

Mr. Speaker, rural America is struggling. I know I don't need to tell you that. Rural farmers in my State are struggling. The cost of everything is going up. Trump's burdensome tariffs forced costs to skyrocket a year ago.

In 2025, 15,000 farms closed, 15,000 farms. The rate of bankruptcy for America's farmers has never been higher. It has never been higher. I challenge any of my Republican colleagues, those who, like me, represent rural communities and farmers and ranchers, I challenge them to go take this resolution to their constituents. Ask them whether they think that this House deserves applause and plaudits and credit and congratulations for a job well done.

I am pretty sure I know the answer. I urge my colleagues, if they, like me, are sick and tired of this place wasting time functioning in this dysfunctional way, then oppose the previous question, oppose the rule, oppose the underlying bills, and join us so that we can get back to the serious issues that face the American people.

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

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

First, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Chicago, Illinois, for his friendship, for his partnership, and for articulating so well today the stakes.

Since returning to office, as my colleague from Illinois referenced, President Trump has made life harder for everyday Americans. He has made life less affordable for everyday Americans, certainly for the working families that I represent in northern and western Colorado.

Let me give you a sense, my colleague from Illinois, about what the last 16 months have been like for my constituents, the folks that I have the privilege of serving in Colorado.

President Trump has denied not just one, but two major disaster relief requests for massive fires that took place last year in Western Colorado, the Lee and Elk fires, and devastating flooding in Southwest Colorado. These are communities that are conservative, rural communities that President Trump denied disaster relief to them all the same.

He has gutted childcare support for Colorado families. Childcare centers across Colorado--Larimer County, Adams County, Western Slope, Southern Colorado--are closing because of this President's policies.

He slashed Medicaid, the largest cut to SNAP in the history of that program, families going hungry across our State and across our country, chaos for our farmers and our ranchers, record-high bankruptcies for America's farmers, including in Colorado.

He fired thousands of workers at our Federal laboratories, in our national parks, and in our national forests.

He has--again, the gentleman said it so well--increased costs on everything. Everything is more expensive. Groceries, medicine, car insurance, health insurance, you name it, it has all gone up.

Now, given all that I just described, the President has the audacity, the gall to propose a $2.2 trillion--trillion with a t--wish list in the form of his budget request that would implement historic cuts to education, to housing, to health programs, all while creating a $1.5 trillion slush fund for the war that he has unconstitutionally declared.

In my view, it is reprehensible, and it is not consistent with the needs of the American people.

We need this administration to get serious about helping everyday Coloradans and Americans afford healthcare and afford the basic needs that they have. We need them to get serious about an economic agenda that actually makes life better for working people.

Unfortunately, this budget proposal is anything but that--quite the opposite.

Now, the good news is that Republicans here in Congress don't have to follow the President's budget. It is not a requirement. I know that may come as a surprise to some folks who are observing the proceedings here in Washington, D.C., because, for the last 16 months, House Republicans have capitulated to virtually every whim, every request, and every demand that this President has made. But they don't have to do that. In fact, they are expected by our Framers and our Founders not to, to instead jealously guard the powers of our branch of government under Article I.

Democrats and Republicans can work together through the appropriations process to advance a proposal that would actually lower costs for everyday Americans. That to me ought to be our North Star.

I hope our colleagues are listening today.

I thank the gentleman from Chicago and so many of my House Democratic colleagues who I know will be speaking this evening for making the case in such an impassioned way. Let's hope it doesn't take my colleagues too long to ultimately do what is right.

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

Mr. Speaker, as you know, at the end of March, last month, Speaker Johnson gaveled out this Chamber and sent Members of Congress home for a 2-week recess. He did so despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has been shut down for 60 days and counting, despite the fact that President Trump had made a reckless and unlawful declaration of war without congressional authorization, despite soaring gas prices and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis stretching from New York, the home of my distinguished colleague, to Colorado, despite the heat, the drought, and the wildfire records being shattered in the Western United States. Despite all of that, Speaker Johnson made the decision to gavel the House out of session and send everybody home.

Now, we are back. The 2-week recess has concluded. What has the Republican majority decided is the most pressing challenge and issue for this august body to debate?

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, it is a resolution commemorating a bill that Republicans passed last year. That is what we are here to debate.

Republicans control the floor. They could put a bill on the floor to address cost-of-living issues. They could put a bill on the floor to address soaring gas prices. They could put a bill on the floor to address rising healthcare costs. Instead, we are here to debate a commemorative resolution. It is absurd.

I have, over the course of the 7 years that I have had the privilege of serving in the United States House, never seen something quite like this. It doesn't

really take a resolution, Mr. Speaker, for them to extol what they believe to be the benefits of the bill that they passed last year, the tax bill, which we will talk about today.

My point, Mr. Speaker, is that this resolution is wholly unnecessary. There are better ways to spend our time.

I heard the gentleman from New York's long description of the many reasons why that particular resolution that I referenced merits this body's passage. What I found interesting is that over the last 12 months that I have come down here to the House floor, I have heard Republicans use the same refrain in describing this bill: the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It is in the law.

For a year, I have heard nothing but tweets, Truth Social posts, and floor speeches extolling the virtues of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. What is fascinating is that I didn't hear those four words this morning. I suspect I am not going to hear them the rest of today because Republicans spent some time and have come up with a new name--a new name, a rebrand.

This bill that President Trump signed into law, which gave tax cuts to the richest Americans among us, is so unpopular that Republicans decided that they had to change the name.

I hate to break it to you, but I don't think the rebrand, Mr. Speaker, is going to work. I don't think the name is what the American people were frustrated by. What they are frustrated by is a bill that kicked off 15 million Americans from their healthcare, a bill that amounted to the largest cut in SNAP in the history of our country, a bill that added $5 trillion over the next decade to the Federal debt. That is what they are frustrated about.

They can call this bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act--what is the name now? Maybe the gentleman from New York will indulge me. The working families tax cut, that is what they are calling it now. I suspect, in a few months, they will change the name again because it is not going to change the unpopularity of their policies.

I know this isn't the only resolution that we are debating today, as the gentleman from New York mentioned at great length. We are going to consider three bills from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which seek to amend the Clean Air Act in an effort to scale back regulations that protect air quality from pollutants and polluting industries.

There is no debate that these policies could have wide-ranging implications that would allow large swathes of the United States to be exempt from various rules under the Clean Air Act.

I don't, to be candid, Mr. Speaker, really follow the argument that my friend from New York is making. As I understand it, what he is saying is that there are wide swathes of the country, including in his home State--by the way, this applies to my home State as well--where you have pollution that exceeds the standards that have been set by regulators at the national level. That pollution is causing asthma and respiratory diseases in children.

The solution that they propose is to allow communities that are experiencing this kind of pollution to essentially exempt foreign sources of pollution from those standards so that they don't have to do anything about it.

That is their solution. The air quality is not going to get any better. There will be no prophylactic steps taken by those communities. It is just a way for those communities to no longer have to do anything about pollution. It is absurd, and the American people know it.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say--and I imagine we will have a robust debate about the three bills and the resolution that I referenced. Fundamentally, I suppose if I were to conclude with one overriding sentiment, it is that I am simply asking my Republican colleagues to get serious.

There are a lot of challenges facing the country. It is a difficult time for the families that I represent in northern Colorado and in western Colorado. Times are tough. This House, I believe, could rise to the occasion and actually work together to get some things done for the American people, for the constituents that we all serve. This is not that.

Spare us the commemorative resolutions honoring bills that you all have passed. Let's just skip those, and let's get back to doing the business that the American people expect us to do.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, a couple of points. First, again, we have heard ad nauseam about the various ways, in the view of my colleagues, that the bill that they passed last year has benefited the American public. I disagree. My constituents disagree, but we are not debating that bill today. We are debating--for those who might be watching this, I encourage everybody to look it up--H. Res. 1156. It is a two-page resolution. It is not particularly long. This resolution does nothing, achieves nothing, and changes nothing. It is a commemorative resolution honoring a law that they passed last year. It is a waste of time.

What are we doing? Seriously. This is how the Republican majority chooses to spend its time?

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do next week? Are you going to introduce a different commemorative resolution that honors maybe this resolution that passes today? Maybe that is what we should count on, I guess.

If this resolution passes today, Mr. Langworthy and I will debate next week a second resolution that honors this resolution.

Give me a break. There are better ways for the House of Representatives to spend its time. These are serious issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

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

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, I co-chair the Bipartisan Wildfire Caucus. I have worked with my Republican colleagues on a number of wildfire resiliency and forest management bills, proposals, and securing funding. I will not be lectured by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as they work to defund the Forest Service, literally, about wildfire resiliency and prescribed burns.

There is no question that, at least with respect to the FIRE Act--I understand we are debating multiple bills with respect to the Clean Air Act, but in terms of the FIRE Act, Mr. Evans' bill, it does nothing. I mean, existing processes within the EPA provide for precisely the type of relief that he is seeking in this bill.

The bill is, again, completely unnecessary. It is also not going anywhere. We, of course, know that to be the case. In any event, I digress.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and thank her for her leadership, I might just say, Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from New York wax very poetically about the importance of the big or not the Big Beautiful Bill Act--whatever they are calling it now--the working families bill or something like that that they have come up with.

There are 218 Republicans in the House of Representatives, give or take. I presume, given the importance of this commemorative resolution, that there perhaps might be some colleagues who are going to join my colleague from New York to talk on this bill?

Mr. Speaker, might I ask you to pose that question to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy)? Does he anticipate any colleagues coming to the floor or just him?

Mr. Speaker, I hope he does. I suspect the answer is ``no.'' I suspect that Mr. Langworthy is here alone and that he will be the only Republican who has been tasked with arguing in favor of this really important commemorative resolution that we are all so eager to vote on.

Mr. Speaker, in any event, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to adopt the Senate amendment to H.R. 7417, the bipartisan compromise bill that the Senate unanimously passed twice now--twice--to fund the law-abiding agencies within DHS.

Mr. Speaker, this is the deal. You know it. I know it. At the end of the day, the compromise legislation that the Senate passed twice was deprived of a vote on this floor by Republicans. Not a single Senator objected to this bill, twice.

The Republican Senate majority leadership authored the motion, but House Republican leadership refuses to take it up. As a result, it is perpetuating the shutdown of DHS by not putting that deal on the floor.

Members who want to end the shutdown ought to join us in defeating the previous question to put this bipartisan compromise on the floor today.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. We are grateful to her for her leadership.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

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

Madam Speaker, a lot of political rhetoric again. I think the American people know the facts. They know that the Senate passed a bill twice on a unanimous basis to fund DHS. It is not complicated. The United States Senate passed the bill. Not a single Senator objected. The United States Senate passed the bill again. Not a single Senator objected. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate, approved of this bill. They sent it here. It is sitting at the Clerk's desk. If we voted on it today, my guess is 90 percent of the House of Representatives would vote for it. The only reason we are not is because the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has decided we are not going to vote on it. That is it.

The rest of it, they can try to confuse the American public and describe to them the play-by-play of the last 65 days. Again, it is not complicated. There is a bill sitting at the Clerk's desk to fund DHS that every Republican Senator, every Democratic Senator, and 90 percent of this body support. The only reason we are not voting on it is politics because Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has decided that he won't allow it. That is it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am prepared to close, but I will say that I am doing this very begrudgingly because I was hoping that we might be able to have some colloquies with my colleague from New York with his colleagues on H. Res. 1156. I know how important this commemorative resolution is to the Republican Conference, and I would be loath to deprive my colleague from New York with the opportunity to have a fulsome debate on it.

Is there no Republican in the House of Representatives who is willing to come down to the floor to extol the virtues of the big, beautiful bill--or the working families bill that they have renamed? None, Madam Speaker?

Was that--

Madam Speaker, I wish to clarify something that the Speaker said. That is not the name of the bill. Just to be clear, I encourage anybody who is watching to go online and pull up the bill. It is, I think, about 350 pages. The one phrase that you will not find in the entirety of the bill is ``Working Families Tax Cuts,'' Madam Speaker. It is nowhere.

I checked. I checked yesterday during the Committee on Rules. I checked again before I came to the floor just to be sure, so I don't know where you came up with that name, Madam Speaker. I am not even really sure who has come up with it in the Republican Conference. Somebody, a marketing guru in the Republican Conference I think convinced the Speaker, and I suppose said to him: ``Look, this bill is deeply unpopular. President Trump is deeply unpopular, more unpopular than any President in the modern history of our country. We have got to do something different, and I have got an idea. We will just come up with a new name for the bill; a new name, resolution honoring that new name that will convince them. I am sure that will get the American public on our side.'' Fascinating.

Madam Speaker, week after week, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have opted to take up a variety of legislation. The one common thread is that it fails to meet the moment.

Americans sent us here to work on the issues that they care most about, that have the most impact on their everyday lives: the rising affordability crisis, expanding access to affordable healthcare, protecting our environment and public resources; not to gut air pollution standards and pass commemorative resolutions patting themselves on the back. That is not how Congress should be spending its precious time.

The bills before us do nothing to improve the lives of working families in our country. It is why I would encourage my colleagues to oppose the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bills.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, 237 years ago, one of our Founding Fathers, John Adams, laid bare his greatest fear for our country, which is that in every assembly, Congresses like this one, Members would gain influence not by sense, but by noise; not by greatness, but by meanness; not by learning, but by ignorance.

Why am I quoting John Adams at 10:30 p.m. on a Friday night? It is because this debate, the Judiciary chairman's remarks, are emblematic of the reality, the cold, hard truth that John Adams' fears proved prescient. All we hear is noise from the other side.

It is the kind of noise that expects the American people to believe that a bill that passed unanimously in the United States Senate somehow defunds the police. It is the kind of noise that expects the American people to believe that every conservative Republican U.S. Senator passed a bill last night that defunds the police. That is their argument.

The bill that the Senate passed, every conservative Senator and every liberal one came to a consensus that the stalemate needed to end, that TSA agents needed to be paid, and that FEMA needed to be funded. They passed that bill on a unanimous basis.

The only reason we are not considering it is because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been captured by the far-right wing of their party. It is shameful.

We have an opportunity tonight to perhaps rise to the occasion and prove John Adams wrong.

If a handful of Republicans--I am not talking about 30 or 20 or 10--if three vote to defeat the previous question, then we can take up the Senate bill tonight, and TSA agents will be paid. It is simple.

It is time for our Republican colleagues to do the right thing and defeat this bill.

Madam Speaker, before I was first sworn in to the United States Congress, my predecessor gave me a great piece of advice. He told me that the most important thing to do as I was getting started was to build a great team.

I am glad I took his advice. The first person that I hired when I became a Member of Congress, to help build the team and to ultimately help lead it, was Sally Anderson.

I rise today 7\1/2\ years later to thank her for her selfless, tireless, and dedicated service--her service to the people of Colorado's Second District, her service to the people of Colorado, and her service to our country.

Sally first served as my district director and later became my Colorado chief of staff. Throughout her tenure, she worked incredibly hard each and every day to serve the citizens of our district. One can imagine the various challenges that our communities face from year to year. She faced each of those challenges with empathy, with compassion, and with unwavering determination. Historic wildfires, terrible flash floods, a devastating mass shooting, emergency after emergency, crisis after crisis, Sally was often the first call that I would make when grappling with how to solve a challenge, address an emergency in my district, and to do the work that we are solemnly charged with doing. She joined me at funerals, memorials, and remembrances. She played a pivotal role in the development of legislation here in Washington, D.C.

I could spend hours, Madam Speaker, regaling you with the stories of the constituents' lives that she shaped, the casework that she supervised, and the countless examples of her kindness, leaving an indelible impression in the hearts and minds of the people I represent from Boulder to Fort Collins, from Vail to Steamboat Springs, and every corner in between.

Sally was also a leader here in Washington. She was a mentor to district directors across the country as part of our district directors' service program. I have heard countless stories from my colleagues who have told me from their district directors of their experience, when they have relied on her counsel and advice when faced with a challenge or crisis.

Perhaps most importantly, above all else, her professionalism and the ways in which she approached her job--selfless, thankless, and always available to help a constituent in need--in my view, it helped restore some trust in our government, which is so desperately needed now more than ever.

Put simply, the Second District and our office will miss her. I wish her well and am so excited for her next chapter. On behalf of the people of the Second District, I thank Sally for her service.

Nexstar Acquisition of Tegna

Mr. Speaker, last night, in the dead of night, the FCC and the Department of Justice did something unprecedented. They approved a merger that would create the Nation's largest local television station operator.

Nexstar Media Group's $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna would make it the largest local television station owner in the United States: 265 stations across 44 States, reaching 80 percent of American households. Why did they approve it? Simple reason: Because Donald Trump wanted them to.

The deal is outrageous. It is devastating for local news, devastating for consumers, devastating for freedom of the press, but perhaps most problematic of all, Mr. Speaker, it is unlawful. The merger and the decision to approve it violates the law.

By the way, this isn't complicated. It is simple. In 2004, Congress created a very specific 39 percent national audience limitation. That is in the law. It is not ambiguous. It is not nebulous. It is clear- cut, and this merger violates it.

Let me read, Mr. Speaker, the dissent from one of the FCC commissioners. I hope every Member of this body reads it in full. ``The order is wrong on the law, wrong on the policy, and the process by which it was issued is indefensible.

``The Commission does not have the authority to raise or waive the 39 percent national audience reach limitation. Simply put: The national audience reach limitation is a statutory requirement, and only Congress has the authority to raise it.''

It is clear-cut, simple. We cannot allow this debasement of the FCC's processes to continue.

Mr. Speaker, I have a solution: Let's rein in this lawless agency through the appropriations process. That is exactly what I intend to propose. I hope my colleagues will join me.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for her incredible leadership during such tumultuous times.

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak. I was watching this debate unfold from my office in Rayburn and could not resist the temptation to come down to the floor to call out the clear intellectual dishonesty that we have heard for the better part of the last hour from my Republican colleagues.

Spare us these crocodile tears.

Let me read you two headlines, Mr. Speaker: ``[Ted] Cruz proposes splitting ICE from Homeland Security funding bill to end airport chaos.'' Another headline: ``Republican Senator Says Trump Killed Bipartisan Deal to Pay TSA workers `by the End of the Week.' ''

Mr. Speaker, you have multiple Republican Senators saying what we all know to be true, which is that Republicans refuse to come to the table and pass a bill that is sitting at the Clerk's desk that the ranking member has introduced to pay TSA workers, to pay folks at FEMA, and to ensure that public servants working on cybersecurity and at the Coast Guard are fully compensated. We could do that today. Republicans refuse to do so.

That is not me talking. That is Ted Cruz talking. That is Senator John Kennedy talking. Every day, another Republican concedes to the reality that has befallen all of us.

I would implore my colleagues that if they truly care about ending this crisis at our airports, pass our bill to fund TSA. Do that today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to every word of my colleague from New York's very long speech regarding the bills that the House is considering today. I might perhaps offer a different picture that I think the American people ought to consider.

I think, as you know, Mr. Speaker, last month the U.S. economy shed over 100,000 jobs--100,000. It was the worst month with respect to job losses since the Great Recession in 2009.

Prices are going up across the board. Everything is getting more expensive. Orange juice is more expensive. Ground beef is more expensive. Countless Americans across our country are struggling.

Last year, we experienced a 46 percent jump in farm-related bankruptcies. Rural America is struggling under this President's reckless policies. Americans across the country are struggling economically because of House Republicans' reckless policies.

For all those who wonder whether politicians in Washington might offer a solution to what ails our country economically, have no fear. House Republicans have come up with an answer. This week, they are focused on what really matters to the American people: Cutting taxes for tasers and making it easier for multinational tech companies, monopolies, to build undersea cables through marine sanctuaries.

Those are the bills that we are considering today on the floor. That is their answer to the economic crisis that has befallen the people of our great country.

It is absurd. It is absurd. It begs the question: Why? Why would House Republicans choose this course, again, given all of the challenges that I know that their constituents face, as mine do?

Unfortunately, it is a reflection of the core values of just too many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who invariably, incessantly, and inherently have a predisposition to favor the ultrarich and the biggest corporations on planet Earth. Anyone who doubts it should consider the bills that we are debating today.

I have to tell you that I do a lot of townhalls in my district. I represent the great State of Colorado. I know the Speaker, being from Nevada, knows my State quite well. I represent a large district in western Colorado and northern Colorado. It is bigger than eight States, with no offense to my colleagues from New Jersey, Maryland, or Rhode Island. It is a huge district, which means that I am on the road a lot. I do a lot of townhalls.

A lot of issues come up at these townhalls. There are a lot of obstacles that Coloradans and Americans are facing that they would like to see their elected leaders help to solve.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the one topic that has never come up at a single townhall that I have held in my career: undersea cables. It just hasn't come up.

Maybe my colleague in New York has a different experience. I don't know. I don't know if he hosts townhalls. I would encourage him to do it. Maybe undersea fiber optic cables are a big deal in his district. I can tell you that they are not in mine.

My constituents aren't really concerned with slashing permitting fees so that the largest technology companies on planet Earth can build fiber optic cables through marine animal sanctuaries. That just isn't something that they are spending a lot of time thinking about.

Who could blame them given all of the concerns that they have in light of the economic conditions that they are experiencing by virtue of this administration's cruel policies that the House Republican Conference has abetted at every turn.

Mr. Speaker, one could ask, as I suspect you would: What is the gentleman from Colorado's suggestion? Lucky for you, Mr. Speaker, I have one, because we know that one of the reasons that prices are going up across the board in the United States are tariffs. It is this President's reckless policies with respect to tariffs. We have some solutions in that regard. They are ways that Congress can finally stop abdicating its authority and exercise its powers with respect to tariffs.

I think the Speaker knows that because Speaker Johnson decided to tuck into the rule that we are considering today a measure that would prevent the House from considering any changes to the President's tariff policies for yet another 6 months.

I am going to read you a quote: ``It will be the fourth time this rule vote putting a gag on tariff debates has been done. I don't think tariffs are good for the economy, manufacturing jobs, and ag industry. American consumers pay the tariffs and thus it is a big tax. I support giving these authorities back to Congress.''

These aren't my words. These are Republican Congressman Don Bacon's words, your colleague, who agrees that what Speaker Johnson is trying to do is to, yet again, gag the United States Congress.

To Mr. Bacon, I say: Thank you for your honesty.

To the rest of my colleagues, I say: Where is your backbone? Where is your spine? Stand up for the Constitution, as your colleague is doing. Stand up for the House of Representatives. Stand up for your constituents.

Shameful, Mr. Speaker.

I am hopeful that perhaps that political courage that Mr. Bacon is showing will be contagious. Maybe a few more of my colleagues will join him.

In any event, I know that we have a lot of speakers who are eager to talk on this subject.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).

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

Mr. Speaker, whenever I have an opportunity to listen to one of my colleagues' speeches in this august body, I can always count on them to do three things: to say a noun, a verb, and ``Joe Biden.'' My colleague from New York does not disappoint with this myopic obsession that they have with Joe Biden.

Facts are facts. The price of beef has risen 16.4 percent since last year. The price of coffee is up 19.8 percent. The price of lettuce is up 7.3 percent. Frozen fish is up 8.6 percent. In total, families paid $310 more for groceries during President Trump's first year in office compared to 2024, so spare us these ruminations about Joe Biden.

If they want to get serious about doing something about the cost crisis in our country, making life more affordable for Americans, there is an easy way to do it: Don't sneak in procedural roadblocks to considering tariff policies by the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), who has been a principled leader on this issue with respect to tariffs.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I am not going to dispute my colleague from Wisconsin's sentiment here. If people are looking to not pay taxes on tasers, he has them covered. The Republican Conference has them covered.

If people are struggling to pay for their groceries or their rent, they are out of luck as far as the House Republican Conference is concerned. Taxes on tasers, don't worry. They have a plan for that. They are working really hard to solve that existential challenge facing the country as we speak.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to strike section 4, which would stop an attempt by Republican leadership to block the House from taking up-or-down votes on President Trump's disastrous tariff policies through the end of July.

As the country knows, since March of last year, Speaker Johnson and the Republican majority have blocked up-or-down votes on these policies. Our view is that these policies have been a disaster for the American people, and everyone knows it.

We all remember, with great fanfare, President Trump announcing liberation day. The only liberation that any of our constituents have felt is the money departing from their wallets as this President increases prices on everyday consumers.

It is wrong, and the Congress has a constitutional duty and responsibility to act. We know that these tariffs have cost the American people trillions of dollars. We know that according to the Joint Economic Committee, the average American family now pays an extra $1,625 in basic expenses thanks to the economic policies of this administration.

The question is why are Republicans hiding from an up-or-down vote on these tariff policies?

In the Senate, multiple votes have been held on these policies. Joint resolutions to terminate the tariffs have been sent to the House, to the Clerk here on a bipartisan basis from the United States Senate four different times. But Republicans, four different times, have done the opposite. Republicans have delayed votes on these tariffs, essentially surrendering one of Congress' main functions to one man, one man in the White House.

During the September vote, several Republicans were apparently so frustrated by the process that they actually held out for about 45 minutes before they, of course, did what we all expect them to do: fold and strike a deal.

One of them--and I will quote from one of my Republican colleagues. One of the temporary holdouts said that under the Constitution, the power to impose tariffs is a congressional power and needs to be restored to Congress. Apparently, he switched his vote after issuing that statement because he got a commitment from the Speaker that this House would only block votes on tariffs until the end of January.

Well, here we are back again with the Republican Conference springing into action to do Donald Trump's bidding. He says: ``Jump.'' Our colleagues say: ``How high?'' Well, not all of our colleagues say that. Maybe one of one or two of them, as I said, may show the courage tonight to vote their conscience.

Republicans are trying to ram through yet another rule to hide from taking up-or-down votes this time until the end of July. It is outrageous, outrageous, and it is why we are offering this amendment. Before yielding to the distinguished ranking member who has been a leader in this regard, I want to quote my colleague Tom Massie from Kentucky, a Republican, who I think said it best. ``Why haven't we

voted on tariffs in the House of Representatives?'' This is a Republican who said this. ``Because Speaker Johnson is using Rules Committee Resolutions, consummated by majority votes of the whole House, to declare that `a day is not a day' in order to AVOID THE U.S. LAW that requires Congress to vote.'' These are Republican Members of Congress, Tom Massie, Don Bacon, all saying what we know to be true, which is that the House is abdicating its duty.

I would encourage my colleagues, those of whom may find some semblance of backbone, to defeat the previous question, and we can finally have an up-or-down vote in this body on whether to terminate President Trump's disastrous tariffs starting this week with Canada, my colleague from New York's neighbor to the north.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, whose proposal we will be considering, who has fought against these disastrous tariff policies at every turn.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).

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

Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to respond to my colleague from New York because, again, I think this rule is largely a smokescreen to just avoid a discussion on the President's reckless tariff policies.

However, insofar as my colleague is obsessed with cutting taxes on tasers, I suppose I am compelled to respond to simply say that what was just stated with respect to violent felons not being able to access tasers by virtue of this legislation, that is untrue. It is just untrue.

Clearly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are seeking to remove these particular weapons from the definition of firearm under Federal law, and as a result, the various protections and safeguards that exist under Federal law. They can make the argument that in certain States there may be protections. That is not true of every State.

In any event, the larger question that every American who is watching C-SPAN now ought to ask themselves is: Why is the U.S. House of Representatives spending so much time on debating cutting taxes for tasers?

How did that manage to become the top priority of the House Republicans in Washington, D.C.?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), who is the distinguished Democratic leader of the House of Representatives.

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

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

``U.S. Manufacturing Is in Retreat and Trump's Tariffs Aren't Helping,'' February 2, 2026, headline, The Wall Street Journal.

Apparently, The Wall Street Journal has Trump derangement syndrome, too, according to my colleague from New York. American consumers must also. Everyone apparently has it except for House Republicans.

By the way, my Republican colleagues talk enough about Joe Biden, one would be forgiven for thinking they miss him. As I said, noun, verb, ``Joe Biden,'' effectively the answer and retort on my colleague's part to every question.

The reality is that my Republican colleagues, as has been displayed and demonstrated time and time again, work tragically for one person, and that person is Donald Trump. Lest anyone doubt that, let's see if a few of them will have the audacity, the courage, to vote against the rule today.

I will say, it bears repeating. I have quoted a lot of Don Bacon on the floor today. If he is watching, I hope he will forgive me in advance. I will read again this tweet, this post on X, from John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News, who quoted Mr. Bacon: ``It will be the fourth time this rule vote putting a gag on tariff debates has been done. I don't think tariffs are good for the economy, manufacturing jobs, and the ag industry. American consumers pay the tariffs and thus it is a big tax. I support giving these authorities back to Congress.''

That is from Republican U.S. Congressman Don Bacon, so spare us the stale and tired attacks about Trump derangement syndrome. These are your colleagues saying it, not me.

My colleagues ought to do the right thing: vote against this rule so that we can have an up-or-down vote on the disastrous Trump tariffs that are inflicting pain on the people who I represent in the great State of Colorado and across the country.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sound an alarm, to sound an alarm about something dangerous and dark and pernicious that is happening inside our government. I recognize there are only a handful of my colleagues in the Chamber to hear that alarm and a few folks in the gallery, but I pray that Americans writ large will hear it.

George Orwell in his famous book ``1984'' wrote of a time when ``The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.'' His warning proved pressing because today the Trump administration asks the American people to ignore what they see with their own eyes and what they hear with their own ears, which is the complete corruption of their government from the inside out.

The Trump administration's pay-to-play schemes are literally ripping off hardworking American taxpayers as we speak. We see the evidence everywhere: A $10 billion payout that Donald Trump, the President of the United States of America, now demands from his own Treasury Department in a lawsuit that he filed against the IRS.

By the way, who does he demand pay him this $10 billion? The American taxpayer. The countless pay-to-play schemes and vanity projects that have consumed his administration, all paid by American taxpayers, are stripping the pocketbooks of Americans to line their own.

Last weekend, The New Yorker reported that the President and his family have raked in $4 billion in personal profits by leveraging the Presidency. Let's think about that, $4 billion.

The most salient example of this, by the way, we just learned about in the last 7 days. It was an expose by The Wall Street Journal about a scheme that the Trump administration engaged in last year.

The Trump family, according to these public reports, sold a 49 percent stake in their crypto company to a member of the Emirati royal family. They did so for nearly half a billion dollars.

We don't know every detail of this transaction. We do know that the Trump family received $187 million from that transaction, a payday entangling the President's financial interests with a foreign country.

Months later, we know that the Trump administration approved a crypto deal with the UAE that included transferring advanced U.S. technology and AI chips.

Mr. Speaker, this is corruption, plain and simple.

It is the prioritization of personal profit over the national security interests of our country, the country we all love so dearly.

It is wrong. It is immoral, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say nothing. Worse, some of them defend this conduct, notwithstanding that they know it is unlawful, that it is violative of our Constitution.

We have an Emoluments Clause, Mr. Speaker, for a reason. The Foreign Emoluments Clause was one of the few provisions to survive and be transferred from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution in 1787. It was contemplated for precisely a scenario as this one.

George Mason, one of our Founding Fathers during the Constitutional Convention, warned his fellow delegates that ``if we do not provide against corruption, our government will soon be at an end.'' His words are as true today as they were when he said them 240 some-odd years ago.

It is shameful the lack of courage from my Republican colleagues. It is repugnant to the constitutional order that we all have been sworn to defend, to protect, and to vindicate.

The question I have, Mr. Speaker, for my Republican colleagues and for every American of good faith is: When is enough enough? How many sweetheart deals will Republicans refuse to condemn?

The corruption must end, Mr. Speaker. The corruption must end.