Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago a heinous and horrific act of terror took place in the district that I represent in Boulder, Colorado.

As families gathered on the idyllic Pearl Street Mall, a group of my constituents, Jewish members of our community, took part in a peaceful walk and vigil to call for the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza as they have done every week for the past 2 years.

As they gathered, they were viciously targeted, ambushed, and attacked by a man who attempted to burn them alive with Molotov cocktails and incendiary devices.

We are praying hard for the 12 victims, several of whom I know personally. It shocks the conscience that on the eve of the holiday of Shavuot, our Jewish brothers and sisters were subjected to yet another brutal, horrific, and anti-Semitic act of violence.

The scourge of anti-Semitism has metastasized across our country, and we have to do more now to stop this hatred and violence.

We continue to stand with the Jewish community today and always and will be united in supporting the victims and their families in the weeks and the months ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Davids).

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost let me thank my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, whose clarion call on this issue, his demand to an end of corruption, an end

to this outrageous practice of stock trading by Members of Congress, has inspired many of his colleagues who have joined the coalition that he is building in real time. I couldn't be more grateful to Representative Magaziner for his leadership and for championing this issue at such a critical time. I am grateful to be a partner with him in this effort.

Our 26th President, Teddy Roosevelt, once said that no man who is corrupt, no man who tolerates corruption in others can do his duty by the community. That admonition rings true today.

Four years ago, I led an effort to ban stock trading by Members of Congress, joined with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. For 4 years, we have tried to convince this Chamber to ban Members of Congress from trading stocks. Why? Members of Congress should be serving their communities, their constituents, and their country, not their stock portfolios.

In that 4-year span, 48 months, 1,400 days, how many millions of dollars have Members of Congress in this body made from trading stocks? It is unconscionable. It is a practice that should have ended years ago. We have continued to beat that drum month after month, week after week, day after day, and we will keep doing it until a majority in this body joins the rest of the American people, the public in supporting a ban to this insidious practice. I am grateful to Representative Magaziner for continuing to beat that drum, leading the effort now over the last 2 years.

It feels as though we are on the precipice, as Mr. Magaziner noted, of finally getting traction in this Chamber to end this practice. The one cautionary note I would offer, Mr. Speaker, is that in that 4-year span, as I mentioned, this journey, this battle that we have waged, again, colleagues of mine on both sides of the aisle to ban stock trading, I have heard virtually every excuse in the book from some of my colleagues: It is too complicated; there are competing bills; the legislative text is complex.

This is very simple. Just ban it. Not 5 years from now, not next year. Let's just put a bill on the floor to ban it, period. Members of Congress will no longer be able to trade stocks, simple as that.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues will join me, join Mr. Magaziner, join the coalition that has organized around this issue so that we can finally get this done and end corruption here in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his leadership, and I echo his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to listen to this debate and to hear the arguments peddled by my colleagues that are hypocritical at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Where were my colleagues when 14 Federal judges appointed by Republican Presidents issued injunctions against policies that the Biden administration was pursuing over the course of the last 4 years? Where were they? Nowhere to be found.

I don't remember my colleagues bringing this bill to the floor. Of course not. Spare me the feigned indignation.

Republicans talk of defending the Constitution when President Trump is running roughshod over provision after provision. The majority talks of judicial overreach as Republicans attack judges across the country.

Read the Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers. The majority should read about the importance that our Framers and Founders placed on judicial independence and reflect on what their conduct will do to the administration of justice in the United States of America and to the rule of law that has been sacrosanct for the better part of two- and-a-half centuries.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should, but I cannot believe that my colleagues would waste time on a dangerous bill like this instead of addressing the consequential challenges that our country faces.

Mr. Speaker, I urge every colleague of mine to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Chairwoman Foxx, for the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today yet again to expose to the American public the misplaced priorities of the House Republican Conference and the Republican majority here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority gaveled us out of session 11 days ago. Here we are back in Washington, D.C. Of course, for us, it feels a lot like ``Groundhog Day'' because, notwithstanding all the economic turmoil, the conflicts across the globe, the various ways in which this administration is making life harder for the people of Colorado, for folks across our country, notwithstanding all the challenges that our country is grappling with, House Republicans have decided to spend this week debating what? Three bills: walk-in freezers, commercial refrigerators, and giving new responsibilities to a Department, the Department of Education, that they are seeking to dismantle, that they want to abolish. That is what we are debating here today, Mr. Speaker.

I listened to every word of the chairwoman's address outlining every component of the bills that we are considering, but for folks who are watching, for those who have graced us with their presence in the gallery, please understand the three bills: one regulating commercial refrigerators; another regulating walk-in refrigerators; and the third, a bill to give new responsibilities to an agency that they are seeking to destroy. That is it. That is what we are debating this week in Washington, D.C.

If folks in the gallery stay here through the week, that is what you will hear. You will hear a debate today, a debate tomorrow, and a debate on Thursday on those three bills.

I suspect that the folks who are watching this debate, Mr. Speaker, would agree with me that there are better things for us to spend our time on here in Washington, D.C., than debating walk-in refrigerators. Seriously? I don't know, maybe for Madam Chairwoman it is really important to the people of North Carolina. She may have a lot of constituents who have walk-in refrigerators. I don't know.

For me, I can tell you I just spent a week in Colorado, in the rural communities that I represent, hosting townhalls, visiting with folks in my community, constituents, ranchers, farmers, teachers, working families, packed townhalls. At those townhalls, do you know the one subject that no one brought up? Commercial refrigerators. It never came up.

At a townhall that we held 3 days ago with over a thousand people in my community, no one at that townhall approached me and said: ``Congressman, can you please go back to Washington and pass legislation on commercial refrigerators? It is really important.'' Nobody said that.

They are really concerned about the Republicans' plan to gut Medicaid. They are pretty concerned about the Republican plans to dismantle Social Security offices across the country. They are deeply concerned about reports that this administration is going to end phone line customer service for senior citizens who are relying on Social Security. They are pretty concerned about a Secretary of Defense who apparently is sending out war plans on unencrypted messaging apps, putting our national security at risk.

Those are the topics that my constituents care about. Commercial refrigerators is not one of them.

You can tell the frustration, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, in my voice. It is the frustration borne from having to come to the floor every week and debate appliances. Can the Republicans just put all the appliance bills in for consideration for 1 week? We can just do them all and then be done with it, and we can move on to having a debate about defending Medicaid, defending healthcare for the millions of Americans who rely on it. Is that too much to ask?

I just would beg of the chairwoman, I understand this is an important priority to her. It is important to the Republican Conference. We get it. They are obsessed with appliance regulation. After this week, can we please just be done with these appliance resolutions and get back to debating the issues that the American people expect us to debate?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, I am not trying to make their legislation on commercial freezers look frivolous. It is frivolous. The American people understand that. They get it. Maybe there are a lot of people in the chairwoman's district buying commercial freezers. Again, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you it is not the top priority of the people whom I represent in northern Colorado and in western Colorado. It is far from it.

Now, I must say, I did hear with interest the chairwoman reference visiting with her constituents. I would simply say that my understanding was that the chairwoman doesn't do townhalls. I think she recently said in an interview that she doesn't do townhalls because they are an opportunity for constituents to yell at their Congressperson. So I find it of great interest.

I would just encourage the chairwoman and every member of the Republican caucus to do a townhall. They are nothing to be afraid of. It is a great opportunity to visit with our constituents. Perhaps if the gentlewoman would do that, she would come away with the same conclusion that I did, which is that the legislation we are considering today is a waste of time and grossly disproportionate to the priorities of the American people. It is simple.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

First, I just want to note, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps it is a point of information for your purposes, you admonished the prior speaker, the ranking member, for not making personalities, or rather making personalities against the President. My understanding is the only person he referenced throughout the duration of his speech was Elon Musk. So I am not sure if that was an accident on your part or if that is intentional, and perhaps the Speaker can clarify because I don't believe he referenced President Trump, but apparently you mistook his references to Elon Musk as a reference to the President.

I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that would be an important thing to clarify in the House moving forward that references to Elon Musk will be treated as references to the President of the United States, which is apparently what the Speaker is doing, that if someone references Elon Musk, that the Chair, that the Speaker will treat it as though we are referencing the President.

It is perhaps a point of clarification for a future time. I will say this, before yielding some time to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico, the chairwoman made reference to supposed fear-mongering regarding Social Security. It isn't fear-mongering. It is on the front page of The Washington Post.

I will read you the quote: ``Elon Musk put a big target on the Social Security Administration in the first weeks of the Trump administration.''

So it is not fear-mongering to share on this floor the concerns that have been articulated by our constituents regarding the dismantling of the Social Security Administration that President Trump and his administration is engaged in. It happens to be the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a member of the Rules Committee.

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

I understand the chairwoman apparently now is saying she won't believe The Washington Post articles. I wonder if she will believe the sentiments of her own colleagues? I believe it was Mr. Lawler from New York who a week ago was bemoaning online the closure of one of the Social Security offices in his own district.

What are we talking about? These offices are being closed in North Carolina, as well, I believe. This isn't some fictional, imaginary hypothetical. The Social Security Administration is closing down offices. Wait times are getting longer.

I just would urge my colleague, whom I have great respect for, to visit with her own constituents, and I suspect that they would share the same frustrations that I am articulating here on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 433, the Department of Education Protection Act, which would shield the U.S. Department of Education from efforts to dismantle the agency and ensure that every student receives the education they deserve.

As my colleague Representative Leger Fernandez already articulated, it makes no sense that Republicans have pushed forward a bill today to give more responsibilities to an agency that they are trying actively to dismantle.

Nonetheless, there is a way forward to save teachers and students and rural schools across the country, including back in Colorado, and that is by ensuring that the Department of Education Protection Act receives a vote here on the House floor.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes) to discuss this bill. Mrs. Hayes is the author and the sponsor of this legislation, a former public schoolteacher, and a National Teacher of the Year. She is someone who has spent her life serving the students, the young folks, and the working families of the people of Connecticut.

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

Mr. Speaker, some of this can get lost in translation, so I will try make this very simple. The gentlewoman, who I respect, wants to abolish the Department of Education. She is unabashed about that. She has voted to close the Department of Education. She supports the President's efforts to dismantle the Department of Education. I presume she supports the President's efforts to reduce the workforce by half. Mr. Speaker, 50 percent of the personnel in the Department of Education are now gone on administrative leave.

Yet, here we are today, debating her bill to create new responsibilities, new requirements, new duties on the very department she seeks to destroy.

What are we doing here?

If they don't want the Department of Education--again, that is their view; they don't want a Federal Department of Education; they are not hiding that--why are we debating a bill to give the Department of Education more power? It is insanity, insanity.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I simply echo the sentiments that have been expressed by so many of my colleagues that the policies that Republicans are pursuing here on the House floor are not the priorities of the American people. I think we all would be far better served if we debated the actual issues of the day, such as the challenges that Representative Stansbury and so many others described so eloquently.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion about townhalls. I don't quite understand, and perhaps the gentlewoman would be willing to expound upon her opposition and the opposition of so many of my colleagues in the Republican Conference to doing townhalls.

I have held 100 townhalls over the course of the time that I have had the privilege of representing Colorado in the United States Congress. We have held them everywhere in my district. I represent communities and counties that voted for Donald Trump, and I have held townhalls and will continue to hold townhalls in those communities because my obligation is to represent every person in western Colorado and in northern Colorado in the district that I serve.

My job is to be accessible to my constituents regardless of their political beliefs. I understand that Republicans are scared right now to host townhalls because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that the policies that the majority is pursuing in Washington are deeply unpopular.

If I spent my week in Washington pushing bills on commercial freezers, I would probably be a little nervous to do a townhall back in my district, too. I get it. I understand where Republicans are coming from. However, maybe the way forward is to spend our time in Washington working on matters of substance. If we do that, I can promise Republicans that their townhalls will go just fine. They will go just fine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman) is still here, but I will relay the substance of the chairwoman's remarks regarding his amendment and the timing of his amendment submission.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close. I have only a few minutes of debate left. As the chairwoman said, this is the people's House, a House that I have great reverence for.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might, via the Speaker, make a request to the chairwoman to engage in a brief colloquy. Perhaps that could provide the viewing public a sense of real debate, as opposed to us just giving speeches.

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

Mr. Speaker, with much respect to the gentlewoman, I think that is a shame because I think the American people ought to be able to hear a fair and full exchange of views in an active debate. I think that is far more present when we actually have a colloquy as opposed to just making speeches.

I simply say that the question I was going to pose to the chairwoman is that she has made clear that these three bills, the bill to give more power to the Department of Education that she seeks to dismantle and bills on the regulation standards for refrigerant walk-in freezers and commercial refrigerators, that those bills are very important to the House Republican Conference, that they are a top priority. Interestingly enough, not a single Republican Member of Congress in the last hour that we have had allocated for debate has indulged us with their presence today to come to the floor and extol the virtues of the legislation that Republicans have pursued on commercial refrigerators. I wonder why. It is probably not an accident.

Mr. Speaker, I can't imagine that there are a lot of Republican Members of Congress who wanted to sign up to come do floor debate today on commercial refrigerators. In light of the biggest mishap on a national security front in decades and in light of all of the challenges that our country is facing, debating refrigerators apparently was not something that many of my chairwoman's colleagues wanted to do.

Nonetheless, I am grateful that we have had an opportunity to share with the American public and give them full transparency into how the Republicans have decided to spend their time and their majority here in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure we will proceed with a few more days of debate. I am sure Republicans will pass their bills on commercial freezers and walk-in refrigerators, and then we will be back next week. One can only hope that Republicans will have seen the light by then and that we won't be up for appliance week number 4, 5, 6, or whatever it is now.

Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to actually debate substantive issues, there is an easy way to do it: opposing the previous question and opposing the rule and the underlying bills so that the House can get back to doing the people's work.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to clarify for the American people, those who may be tuning in, certainly the individuals who have joined us in the gallery today, what this debate is all about.

Just by way of context, let's consider what is happening in the world today. I don't know if my colleague from New York has checked his phone, but the stock market is plummeting. The 401(k)'s of residents in New York and residents in Colorado are wiped out. The massive tariffs that the President of the United States applied to our neighbors at midnight we know will increase the price of everything: groceries, fuel, energy, you name it.

There were mass layoffs of Federal workers, mass purges of veterans at different Federal agencies, mass terminations of Forest Service employees in my district working on wildfire mitigation, scientists at NOAA, individuals doing cancer research, all of that is happening as we speak. Yet, here we are in this august body debating what? Labeling requirements for appliances.

That is what the Republicans have decided to spend today debating, labeling requirements for pool heaters. I don't know if the gentleman from New York has a pool. I don't have a pool. I don't understand why we are wasting time in the House of Representatives debating regulatory requirements for pool heaters or labeling requirements for coolers and air-conditioners. Seriously.

The stock market is crashing, and this is how House Republicans choose to spend their time. Government funding is about to dry out 10 days from now and we want to spend our time talking about pool heaters.

Give me a break, Mr. Speaker. Let's get serious. This isn't what the people of the United States elected us to do. I implore my Republican colleagues to come to the table, work with us in good faith, and stand up to the Trump administration that is dismantling Federal agencies in your own districts.

Social Security offices are being shut down. There are constituents who can't get services from the Federal Government because this President has decided to dismantle these agencies piece by piece.

It is time to get our priorities right, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you that the priorities that the House Republicans are pursuing today and have been pursuing for the better part of the last 2\1/2\ months are grossly out of step with the values of the American people.

It is why I would hope every Member of this body would oppose the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it feels like I am living in the twilight zone again. I understand the gentleman from New York very much wants to spend a half hour debating labeling requirements for pool heaters. I get it. We all get it. It is important to you. It is not important to me and not important to the people who I represent. In the 5 minutes that you just spent describing the reasons for this bill in your view, the stock market has continued to go down. More corporations have announced that they will be increasing prices later this week because of President Trump's tariffs. I don't understand how you believe that that is lowering costs.

Again, I would implore my colleagues, let's get serious. There are plenty of substantive challenges facing this country that merit and warrant the attention of lawmakers here in Washington. For the record, House Democrats are not scared to debate any single one of them.

Apparently, reports this morning indicate that in the Republican Conference meeting, a member of Republican leadership stood up in the meeting and supposedly told his Conference a simple instruction: Not a single one of you should attend or participate in a townhall.

Why? It is because they are scared of their own constituents, Mr. Speaker. They understand that if they hold a townhall with their community, they will hear outrage from everyday American citizens who are pissed off, who are angry that the prices for everything are going up because of this reckless Trump administration's policies.

Again, you want to spend a half hour, an hour, 8 hours debating labeling requirements for pool heaters? Be my guest. However, don't expect House Democrats to participate in it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Tran), a veteran who served our country honorably who can speak to the reasons why this amendment is so important.

If we defeat the previous question, I will be offering an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 1637, the Protect Veteran Jobs Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the gentleman from New York. We have a lot of folks who come to Washington, D.C., to observe these proceedings. I suspect it might seem a little rote to them. I would love to have an actual debate. Maybe there are some folks here from New York, some folks from Colorado who would like to see us engage in some substantive debate.

Therefore, I might ask the gentleman from New York because he ended his last remarks by appealing to the voices of the American people and that he and his Conference, in his view, are standing up for the voices of the American people.

I wonder if the gentleman might answer a question. Mr. Langworthy, have you held a townhall this year? It is not a rhetorical question. I am just asking.

Mr. Speaker, if I might ask the gentleman from New York, I believe colloquies are permitted in this Chamber.

I am not. I am asking, rather, through the Speaker to the gentleman from New York if he has held an in-person townhall with the people of New York that he represents this year. I am just curious.

He doesn't have to answer if he doesn't want to answer. It is a yes or no question. It is not a complicated question.

Okay, I will take it as a ``no.''

Clearly, he has not held a townhall in 2025. I would think he would be jumping up to clarify the record that he, in fact, had met with his constituents, Mr. Speaker, if that were the case. He clearly has not held a townhall. I understand why. I get it, because at this juncture, if House Republicans held townhalls, as their constituents express their outrage and indignation at the mass layoffs of Federal workers, of civil servants and at the tariffs that are increasing prices and at the stock market crashing, if their only response is: We took up a really important bill this week on labeling requirements for pool heaters, I could understand why one would have some trepidation about hosting a townhall under those circumstances.

Again, let us be serious about the work that we are called to do in this body. We are here to lower costs for working families, to build safer communities, to ultimately ensure that the American people, the American taxpayers, the Constitution is vindicated. It is unfortunate that my colleagues don't feel the same way.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about so-called theatrical performances. I didn't realize that asking the simple question of whether or not the gentleman had held a townhall this year counts as theater. I understand it is a forbidden question in the House Republican Conference now as to whether or not one has held a townhall, for obvious reasons.

My constituents certainly don't find that to be an offensive question. We have held five townhalls in the last 2 months. We look forward to holding more because we are going to be responsive to the American people. I wish my colleagues would do the same.

What I won't do, and I think what the American people won't do, is be lectured by Republicans about rising costs when literally, as we speak, Trump's tariffs are taking hold and beginning the process of increasing prices, which already started 30 days ago, and putting it into overdrive.

These are just a couple of headlines from the last 8 hours. ``New England, New York grid operators prepare to collect millions in tariffs on Canadian electricity.'' The New York Post says that car prices could potentially surge by $12,000 because of these tariffs.

House Republicans have the audacity to lecture us about increased costs when they are increasing the costs of everything?

By the way, this is not some foreign debate. I represent Colorado. I am proud to represent the great State of Colorado. I have never been to the gentleman's district in upstate New York, but my understanding is that it is pretty close to the Canadian border. There are billions of dollars of economic development in New York and commerce that is transacted between Canada and the United States a mere few miles from the gentleman's district. He describes this as theater?

I am not so sure that the folks in his district and that the people of New York will feel that way as these tariffs begin to kick in. I am sure that the farmers and the ranchers in Colorado that I represent, I can assure you, won't call it theater.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to spend every second of every minute of every day talking about the prior President. It has been a half hour now of my colleague on the other side of the aisle starting and ending every sentence with Joe Biden. Donald Trump is the President of the United States.

My colleague reminds us, yes, Republicans have a majority in the House and in the Senate. All I am suggesting is that maybe they should use that majority to do better things than waste everyone's time on labeling requirements for pool heaters. That is it. Maybe we ought to be a little bit more concerned with the 401(k)'s of our constituents, of working families in Buffalo and in Fort Collins, Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that is too much to ask, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as expected, we have a rebuttal replete with references to the 118th Congress, what Democrats did in the last Congress, assigning blame, and all the rest. I remind my colleague that the Republicans are in charge. They have the majority. They have the ability to shape events. They have a Republican President and a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate.

I can certainly assure my colleague that my constituents, who are seeing their 401(k) balances vanish in real time, would not describe these policies as common sense. The stock market tanking, prices of fuel going up, prices of food going up, prices of cars and vehicles going up, car insurance, home insurance, you name it, under Trump's economy, everything goes up.

By the way, he is unabashed about it. I watched some of his press conference yesterday. He is not hiding it. He has acknowledged it. He has said outright that he knows these tariffs will increase prices in the short term, according to him, and he expects the Republican Conference to defend him tooth and nail as these prices go up.

The gentleman talks about economic growth. The Federal Reserve, the Atlanta branch, just yesterday forecasted negative GDP growth for this quarter. That is the first time in a long time there has been negative GDP growth under President Trump. This is the commonsense agenda that my colleague from New York sells to farmers and ranchers in Colorado? We are not buying it. The American people aren't buying it.

It is why I implore every Member of this body to oppose this rule.

Mr. Speaker, it is also why I would implore everyone to support the amendment to the rule that we would like to pursue by bringing up H.R. 1637, the Protect Veteran Jobs Act, which was brought up previously.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I will direct my comments to the Chair, to you, Mr. Speaker, to express my frustration, which is the frustration felt by so many of the hardworking people of the great State of Colorado that I have the privilege of representing in the House of Representatives. It is a frustration borne from the realities that they are facing each and every day.

As I mentioned, we have an economy that is in free fall, a stock market that is tanking. They are seeing their neighbors, their friends, public servants, being purged from Federal agencies, hardworking civil servants who do wildfire mitigation work in Colorado and across the Rocky Mountain West, unceremoniously fired.

There are scientists at the NOAA and NWS facilities in Boulder and elsewhere being subject to these mass terminations by a Federal executive who seems intent on dismantling agency after agency. We have a House Republican caucus that is walking with him in lockstep every step of the way as they prepare to slash Medicaid to the tunes of hundreds of billions of dollars.

The frustration that my constituents feel is justified, because notwithstanding every single one of those transgressions, every single one of those challenges, those obstacles that Republicans have manufactured and created in their daily lives, if they tune in to this debate, they will see that the focus is on none of that and instead on the matters that we have discussed today.

My constituents, Mr. Speaker, do not want to see me debating labeling requirements for pool heaters. They don't. I won't speak for what the people of New York have to say about their Representatives. I will just say for Colorado and Coloradans, they expect me to be here pursuing policies that will make their lives easier, that will promote economic growth and a better quality of life. They are not getting it from this House under Republican control. I can assure you of that.

I understand House Republicans, I am sure, will pass the rule and they will get their bill on water heaters and pool heaters and air conditioners passed through the House. They will have a big fancy signing ceremony at the White House where they will celebrate the fact that they repealed a labeling requirement rule that was promulgated a year ago.

I fear for what the broader economic trends will be when they have that signing ceremony. Who knows. But if past is prologue, I am reasonably confident that the economy will continue the free fall unless Republicans work with us, Democrats, in good faith, to pursue policies that would advance opportunity in our country.

That is my humble request, Mr. Speaker. The best way to get started is by opposing the previous question, opposing the rule, opposing the underlying bills, and getting back to the business of this House.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank my colleagues, Representative Casten and Representative Stevens, for their leadership and courage of conviction in taking on this important legislative effort.

Over the past 3 weeks, America has watched with alarm as President Trump and his administration continued to throw the Federal Government into chaos, slashing funding for a variety of different programs, unlawfully attempting to freeze Federal programs, and ultimately, in my view, taking steps that are unconstitutional and inconsistent with the values of the American public.

My office has been inundated in particular with calls from constituents who are deeply troubled and concerned, Mr. Speaker, about what is happening at the Treasury Department.

The Trump administration has placed an unelected billionaire and his associates in extreme areas of power, giving them access to Americans' most sensitive information. Americans are outraged. They are right to be outraged.

The good news, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a legislative response that would ameliorate this particular challenge, and that is the bill that Representative Casten and Representative Stevens have introduced, the Taxpayer Data Protection Act.

It is a simple bill, a straightforward proposition that your data, Mr. Speaker, your Social Security number and identifying information, just as every American's, should be protected.

One would think that that would be something that every Member of this body could agree upon, yet we have been unable to convince a Republican colleague, a colleague from the other side of the aisle, to join this effort.

We only need three, Mr. Speaker, three Republicans who decide to do the right thing, to stand up for the American taxpayer, to protect their data. If three join Mr. Casten and Ms. Stevens, we can get this bill across the finish line.

House Democrats will certainly continue to do everything in our power to achieve that outcome. I thank the Representative from Illinois for his leadership and for continuing to make the clarion call to the American people about this particular issue.

Mr. Speaker, recent reports suggest that President Trump may attempt to dismantle the Department of Education unilaterally. An executive order of this nature would be catastrophic for the tens of millions of students and teachers in schools across our Nation, including in the great State of Colorado.

It would undercut support for children learning to read and write. It would, in my view, scrap key programs for high school students looking to get their college degree and abandon hardworking educators, schools, and students in rural and low-income communities.

Mr. Speaker, any effort to unilaterally dismantle this department would be clearly unconstitutional and unlawful. House Democrats will use every tool available to us to stop it.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the accomplishments of Dr. Daniel N. Baker, who, for the last three decades, has served as the Director of the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP), one of the longest-established and top-funded research institutes at the University of Colorado Boulder. In this position, Director Baker has been instrumental in advancing LASP and the university into an epicenter of space science research and aerospace workforce development crucial to Colorado and our Nation.

Director Baker simultaneously serves as a professor in three University of Colorado Boulder departments, including Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences, Aerospace Engineering Sciences, and Physics. During his tenure, Director Baker has published more than 900 papers, edited nine books, and won numerous prestigious awards for his research and leadership. He also has continuously contributed to the international advancement of topics in space physics.

Director Baker has built LASP into one of the top academic space research centers and the only one in the world to send an instrument to explore every planet in our solar system. Under his leadership, LASP grew from approximately 180 to 750 employees, about one-quarter of whom are students. Over the years, the institute has provided hands-on training on numerous NASA missions for hundreds of CU Boulder students. Some of these students have returned to LASP as employees, while others now work at NASA centers and in aerospace businesses across the country, extending Director Baker's legacy for decades to come.

Under his guidance, CU's laboratory has helped revolutionize our understanding of the cosmos, conducting numerous important missions, including NASA's Cassini mission to Saturn, the New Horizons mission to Pluto, and SNOE, one of the space agency's first small satellite missions.

Director Baker's contributions will continue to be felt in Colorado, across the country, and throughout the world for decades to come. I want to congratulate him as he shifts to a new focus on space policy at the university and thank him for his stellar service to our community, Colorado, and the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and celebrate Dr. Phil DiStefano, a man whose 15 years of leadership as Chancellor of the University of Colorado Boulder and a half-century of dedication to CU Boulder have left an indelible mark on the university. I've had the privilege of witnessing firsthand the profound impact that Chancellor DiStefano's leadership has had on CU and across our state.

Phil's journey is nothing short of inspiring. A first-generation college student from Steubenville, Ohio, his academic and professional path has taken him from Ohio to the heights of leadership at one of our Nation's top universities. His journey is a testament to the transformative power of education and the potential that lies within each of us. While he may have started in Ohio, Colorado is his home today, and our state has greatly benefited from his presence.

Throughout his tenure as Chancellor, Dr. DiStefano was committed to making CU Boulder a nationally recognized research institution that shapes tomorrow's leaders and positively impacts society. Under his leadership, CU Boulder has awarded nearly 117,000 degrees and raised over $2 billion in philanthropic gifts. Through his work in technology transfer, Chancellor DiStefano has paved the way for substantial growth in the university, including the creation of 40 startup ventures and the signing of 223 license and option agreements.

The university's research and innovation efforts have had a significant influence not only on the local economy but also on the entire Nation. Over the past five years, CU Boulder's commercialization activities alone generated a domestic economic impact of $1.9 billion, supporting an estimated 11,545 jobs and contributing $1.2 billion to the state's economy, and has ensured that CU Boulder remains at the forefront of research.

As Dr. DiStefano transitions to his new role as Senior Executive Director of the CU Boulder Center for Leadership, we know that his legacy of student success, faculty excellence, and campus sustainability has elevated CU Boulder to the top tier of academic institutions, making it a beacon of excellence across the country. I want to personally express my gratitude to Chancellor DiStefano for his service to our community, Colorado, and our Nation. His contributions will be felt for decades to come.

I thank Phil for his leadership and dedication to CU Boulder. It has been an honor to work alongside him.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Oregon, Representative Hoyle, for her kind words and her articulate description of the bill that we are considering today.

In particular, I thank Ranking Member Larsen for his leadership on the committee and his help in getting this bill across the finish line, we hope, in the days and weeks ahead.

I thank my friend and colleague, the chairman of this distinguished committee. I certainly wish him well in all of his future endeavors. I have enjoyed our verbal sparring on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and the House Committee on Natural Resources. I have appreciated his friendship and also appreciated his leadership and his support for this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the Disaster Management Costs Modernization Act. As you heard from Representative Hoyle, as we continue to face increasing numbers of natural disasters across our country--wildfires, floods, hurricanes, and more--it is critically important that we work to equip our communities with the resources they need.

My home State of Colorado has seen firsthand the devastating impacts of these disasters, as we have unfortunately experienced record- breaking and deadly wildfires, drought, and flood conditions all over in just the past few years.

Mr. Speaker, this bill would strengthen our efforts to prepare for and mitigate the impacts of future disasters across our country. It is a simple bill. When State and local governments receive Federal assistance through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, otherwise known as FEMA, they are allocated a percentage of that assistance for management costs or administrative costs to manage that disaster.

However, as you heard Representative Hoyle describe, those management costs are awarded for a particular disaster. When managing multiple open disasters, the reality is that that results in unnecessary administrative burdens on State and local governments and limits flexibility for disaster recovery and preparedness.

Mr. Speaker, let me give you a very practical example of what this looks like. In Colorado's Second Congressional District, we have been home to multiple historically large and destructive wildfires. Oftentimes, these wildfires happen simultaneously in different parts of our State and indeed different parts of my district.

In my view, the ability for the State government and local governments to apply these cost-sharing dollars these grants, from FEMA for different disasters simultaneously has been inhibited by, in my view, a nonsensical approach in current law. That is what we seek to change, Mr. Speaker.

It is a commonsense way to cut red tape and ultimately benefit communities across the West and across the country as they continue to grapple with natural disasters in the years ahead.

I am proud this bill is supported by a broad spectrum of Coloradans, Republicans and Democrats. That includes my colleagues in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Hoyle and the chairman. I encourage everyone to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to honor and thank Dr. Angelika Schroeder for her storied career and dedication to serving communities across Colorado, for her commitment to improving educational opportunities for our students, for her advocacy on behalf of our schools, and for her mentorship and friendship throughout the years.

Dr. Schroeder is a lifelong public servant, dedicating more than 30 years to Colorado's education system. She attended the University of Colorado, Boulder, where she earned a bachelor's degree in mathematics, a master's degree in business administration, and a doctorate in accounting. Dr. Schroeder then shared her expertise with students as a tax CPA and college professor of accounting. From there, her passion for education led her to become involved in her daughters' schools at the local, district, state, and national levels.

In 1995, Governor Roy Romer appointed Dr. Schroeder to an advisory board of the State Board of Education. In 1999, she became a member of the Boulder Valley School Board, where she served as treasurer and vice president. In January 2009, Dr. Schroeder was appointed to the State Board of Education to fill a vacancy and was later elected to the board in November 2010. She has since been re-elected twice and will complete her final term in January 2025.

Throughout her career, Dr. Schroeder has also served on the boards and executive committees of the Colorado Association of School Boards (CASB), the Alliance for Quality Teaching, and the Public Education and Business Coalition. She has participated in the National School Boards Association Federal Relations Network, where she worked with members of Colorado's congressional delegation, including myself, to push for policies that strengthen our education system and make progress on critical issues--supporting bills like the No Child Left Behind Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

In sum, Dr. Schroeder has had a tremendous impact on the people of Colorado, consistently upholding her commitment to enhancing our state's education system and ensuring

that we serve our students to the best of our ability. The impacts of her actions will be felt for many years to come.

So, on behalf of Colorado's 2nd Congressional District, I thank and honor Dr Angelika Schroeder for her invaluable contributions to paving a better future for our state, country, and the upcoming generations.

I Thank Angelika and wish her all the best in your future endeavors

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

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