Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, let me just say a word of gratitude to my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), for founding and chairing the Stop Project 2025 Task Force. His determined leadership on this particular issue has been incredibly important, and I and so many of my colleagues on the House Democratic Caucus are grateful for it.

Right now, Mr. Speaker, Americans across the country are looking to leaders in Washington to solve problems, to address issues of critical importance facing our families and our communities across this great Nation. They are looking to us to lower costs, to grow the middle class, to build safer communities, and to put people over politics.

Unfortunately, Project 2025 calls for the very opposite. As H. Res. 1386 makes perfectly clear, extreme MAGA Republicans have authored a radical playbook that would harm middle-class families by raising taxes, allowing employers to stop paying overtime, repealing the Affordable Care Act, ending Medicare as we know it, opening the door for disastrous cuts to Social Security, and raising the retirement age, making workers work longer for less.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California said it so well. The American people do not want this plan. They don't support it. That much is clear.

I would encourage my House Republican colleagues to abandon the reckless plans articulated in Project 2025, which the majority has attempted to legislate on the floor over the course of these last several months, often throwing the House into chaos during the course of the 118th Congress.

I would encourage them to, instead, work with us collaboratively on policies that put people over politics, on policies that create an opportunity economy, on policies that ultimately ensure that our brighter days are ahead.

The stakes are simply too high, and, of course, Mr. Speaker, a great way to do precisely that would be to work with us on a bipartisan path forward to keep the government funded, to keep the government open, so that we can get back to the business that the American people expect us to consider on the House floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) again for his leadership on this task force.

Madam Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and classmate from the great State of Washington. Dr. Schrier has been a tireless advocate for our wildland firefighters, effective forest management, and ensuring that we make the necessary investments that we know must be made for wildfire resiliency and mitigation.

Of course, all of those issues are incredibly important to the people of her great State and, as she mentioned, certainly incredibly important to the people of Colorado, the State that I am privileged to represent in the United States Congress.

In particular, I thank Representative Schrier for hosting and facilitating this opportunity on the House floor. Madam Speaker, you heard from so many of our colleagues, each of whom are leaders in their own right, particularly from the Rocky Mountain West and the Western United States, from Nevada, California, Arizona, of course, and many other States in the Intermountain West, all of which are grappling with these challenges that have become so prevalent and pernicious in our part of the country.

I am grateful that House Democrats are working really hard across party lines because, of course, none of these issues are partisan in nature. Wildfires don't respect political boundaries or jurisdictional limitations. They impact every citizen of the West and every citizen of our country. It is critical for us to marshal the necessary resources to ultimately address those challenges.

The particular challenge that I want to call attention to tonight, Madam Speaker, is one, of course, that you are familiar with and one that you have heard from many other of my colleagues this evening: The way in which Federal wildland firefighters are treated, in my view, by the Federal Government is patently unfair and unconscionable.

For years, we have relied on these first responders, these brave public servants, these courageous individuals, to protect our homes, our small businesses, our communities, and our States. They risk life and limb to protect us.

I say that having had multiple historic wildfires in my district back home in Colorado. The largest wildfire in the history of our State, the second largest wildfire in history of our State, the most destructive wildfire in the history of our State all happened within the last 4 years in the congressional district that I call home.

I have seen firsthand the sacrifices made by these wildland firefighters, and it is unconscionable that we don't pay them a living wage.

Now, we made a lot of progress because of Dr. Schrier's work leading the way with others, myself included, to ensure that, in the bipartisan infrastructure law, we finally provided a holistic pay structure that compensates our wildland firefighters. Not a panacea, didn't solve the problem, but it made progress, progress that we could build on.

Instead, unfortunately, right now we are poised to potentially go backward because, as you know, Madam Speaker, those core provisions of the bipartisan infrastructure law that largely codify the executive order that President Biden had issued previously to increase wildland firefighter pay, those provisions which were enhanced by a variety of other statutory provisions that we were able to enact through the NDAA last year to provide, as I said, more comprehensive pay scales for our wildland firefighters, are set to expire at the end of the month.

The clock is ticking, Madam Speaker, and it is incumbent upon every Member of this august body to come together, to work together, to find common ground, and do what is right by these wildland firefighters. They deserve it. They have earned it. The time for excuses, in my view, is long past gone.

I am committed, Madam Speaker, to working in good faith with anyone of either party to address this challenge and to ensure that our wildland firefighters are paid what they are owed. I am going to keep at it, working with Dr. Schrier and my many colleagues, and hope springs eternal that we will get this done because, of course, the stakes are too high for us not to get it done.

Madam Speaker, I give my gratitude to Representative Schrier for her leadership.

Madam Speaker, first, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for hosting this important Special Order hour to honor our friend, our beloved colleague, Judge Jackson Lee.

It is a blessing to be able to serve in the people's House with giants--Madam Speaker, you have had the opportunity tonight to hear from several--to be able to serve with Congresswoman Lee and to serve with Congressman Mfume, among many others, and to hear their perspectives on their time serving with Judge Jackson Lee.

Mark Twain is credited with saying that history doesn't often repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

As Mr. Mfume was describing the late Judge Jackson Lee and her adulation, respect, and admiration for Barbara Jordan, the first Black woman to ever be elected to United States Congress from the State of Texas, I am reminded of a story.

At the end of Congresswoman Jordan's life, she had a bone-deep devotion to the Constitution, bone-deep devotion and faith in the Constitution, which was shown on full display during her service in the Congress, in particular during the Watergate proceedings.

In 1996, when Barbara Jordan passed away, they were searching through her belongings, and they found in her purse a copy of the U.S. Constitution. I can see, as clear as day right now, our friend, Judge Jackson Lee, on the Judiciary Committee, where myself and Representative Johnson and others had the privilege to serve with her, holding the Constitution out as she was questioning a variety of different witnesses who have come through that committee.

Judge Lee's faith, devotion, and commitment to the Constitution was bone deep. To hear Representative Mfume describe his conversations with her as she asked him about the great Barbara Jordan, it is beyond moving.

As I try to come up with the right word to describe Judge Lee--I call her Judge Lee because I would always call her Judge Lee. She would call me attorney general, although I have never been an attorney general, but she had decided that would be my moniker.

I have spent time over the past several days to conjure up the word that I would use to describe her. The best word that I have been able to come up with is prolific.

She was a prolific orator. One need only look at the C-SPAN records to see

that she spent more time on the House floor in this Chamber speaking directly to the American public than any Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Think about that legacy.

She was a prolific legislator. We have heard from many of our colleagues about the many bills that she was able to get across the finish line, signed into law by multiple Presidents. For me, the work that I remember most vividly is her work to combat gun violence, which was a lifelong passion of hers that she pushed for on the Judiciary Committee.

She was a prolific colleague. I, too, joined my colleagues at the funeral for Don Payne, Jr., and I remember well seeing Judge Lee at that service and being so moved that someone fighting such a terrible disease would somehow muster the physical stamina, courage, and strength to venture to New Jersey to say good-bye to her friend.

About a month ago, 6 weeks ago, I got a call here in Washington, at 10:50 p.m. on a Wednesday night, from Representative Jackson Lee. She was in Houston.

I thought perhaps that she was calling to check-in. I was eager to talk to her about her fight against cancer. She had fought so valiantly, as Representative Barbara Lee articulated earlier, in her first bout with breast cancer over a decade before. I had shared with her that my wife had been battling breast cancer for the last year and that we were drawing strength knowing that she was steadying herself for this next battle.

She didn't call me to talk about the disease. She called to harangue me about a press conference that was scheduled for the next day, and she was eager to solicit my help in securing speakers for an important bill that she intended to roll out. Notwithstanding whatever physical ailments she might have been fighting at the moment, she was working until the end.

I know I am not the only one who was the recipient or a beneficiary of her calls. She was prolific.

I will close with my final observation. I remember coming into the Congress--and Representative Mfume mentioned this. I suspect others have as well--one of my first images of Judge Jackson Lee was her sitting here, right next to the main entryway to this august Chamber during the State of the Union Address.

Without fail every year, she would be seated right here. A few days ago, I came across a commendation, a recounting of Judge Jackson Lee's life, and this particular author's view of why Judge Jackson Lee always found herself right here.

Their view, their belief, their theory was that for a Black woman representing tens of millions of people from the State of Texas, a woman who was in one of the first coed classes at Yale, one of the first Black women to matriculate from that institution, it was important to her that others see her. It was important that young, Black women, like my 6-year-old daughter, could see her, could be inspired by her. It was important for them to know that if they worked hard enough, they too could find themselves shaking the hand of every President for the better part of the last quarter century. Reading that, it all made sense.

Godspeed, Judge Lee. Thank you for your service to our country. Your family is in our prayers.

First, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we are so grateful to the

ranking member for his steadfast leadership in leading the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and of course, his leadership with respect to the PACT Act.

I couldn't be more grateful to the colleagues that I have the privilege of serving with in the House Democratic Caucus, whom the country will hear from tonight, many of whom are veterans, people like Representative Deluzio and Representative Carbajal, individuals who have given a great deal to our country, made countless sacrifices, and now are leading the charge here in Congress to protect our veterans.

I couldn't be more grateful to people like Dr. Raul Ruiz whose leadership year after year make the case for the Congress to treat this particular issue with the urgency that it deserves, ultimately culminating in the PACT Act.

The PACT Act, as you heard from our ranking member, marked the largest expansion of benefits in a generation, cutting red tape and waiting times for veterans who were exposed to toxins and developed certain illnesses.

It was historic in that it provided benefits to generations of veterans, many of whom were long forgotten. There are one million PACT Act claims, Mr. Speaker, and we are just getting started.

For the families who have suffered the ultimate loss, the PACT Act means access to life insurance, to tuition benefits for their surviving family members, home loan assistance, monthly stipends, and more.

Mr. Speaker, you will hear from Mr. Jim Costa and Mr. Tim Kennedy and so many other members of our caucus the same admonition, which is that we have to do everything in our power to provide for the families of fallen servicemembers.

We have made progress in that regard, but there is much more for us to do. House Democrats stand ready, as we always are and will be, to get that job done.

I thank the ranking member again for his leadership, I thank the members of the House Democratic Caucus for their leadership, and I look forward to making more progress in the days, months, and years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, again, for his leadership, his clarity of conviction, and the steadfast commitment that he has shown to our Nation's veterans time and time again. I certainly could not say it any better than he has, as you have heard, Mr. Speaker, from a wide cross section of the House Democratic Caucus, Members representing every community in our great country.

Our commitment to our Nation's veterans is rock solid. It is evidenced by the work that Ranking Member Takano and House Democrats, in partnership with President Biden, were able to ultimately accomplish in the last Congress, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, 1 million claims under the PACT Act, real families, real stories, and real impacts for countless veterans who have made incredible sacrifices for our country. We are indebted to them, and we will continue our commitment to them in the weeks, the months, and the years ahead led by Ranking Member Takano and by the leadership of the Members whom you have heard from this evening.

I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, my gratitude to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Lee), my distinguished colleague, for her leadership on this particular issue, her leadership in the Colorado River Caucus over the course of these last several years as the Upper Basin and Lower Basin States grapple with a historic drought, as was articulated.

I could not say it any better than she did as to the bipartisan approach that she and others are championing here in the United States Congress. I am proud to add this particular piece of legislation to that approach. Of course, my gratitude to Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva for their consideration of this important bill.

I have the honor and the privilege of representing the great State of Colorado in the United States Congress, and the headwaters of the Colorado River are in my district. In Colorado, we know how important it is to preserve, protect, and strengthen these critical water resources and how important data is to that effort, which is why this bill is so important.

As has been explained by both the chairman and Representative Lee, the Federal priority streamgage network is a federally funded network of streamgages to measure streamflow information for forecasting, flood and drought planning, water-quality monitoring, and more. The national groundwater resources monitoring network is a collaborative network that serves a similar purpose.

At the end of the day, the improved water estimation, measurement, and monitoring technologies programs provide grants to develop and implement new technologies and methodologies to measure water resources data. Each of these programs, I can certainly tell you, Mr. Speaker, is a valuable source of information for water users across the State of Colorado, across the Upper Basin States, the Lower Basin States, and, indeed, across the Rocky Mountain West.

It is critical these efforts be supported and authorized, which is why I am proud to sponsor this important bipartisan legislation.

It is a simple bill, a noncontroversial bill, one that I hope will earn the support of every Member of this august body, and I certainly look forward, after the House has considered it, to getting it across the finish line with our partners in the Senate, Senator Lummis and Senator Hickenlooper, of course, from the great State of Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. NEGUSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, today's rule, as you have heard, provides for the consideration of three partisan appropriations bills. While I certainly agree with my colleague from Georgia regarding the myriad of threats posed to our country, these bills fall far short of addressing those threats.

House Republicans have, regrettably, kicked off the appropriations season by doubling down on failed legislation that would, in effect, harm our servicemembers, abandon our allies, cede the U.N. to our adversaries, and withhold critical resources needed to secure our southern border.

When it comes to global leadership and national security, House Democrats and House Republicans have a very different approach. House Republicans' Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, H.R. 8771, ultimately revives the doomed isolationism of the early 20th century.

Across the globe, America's adversaries threaten the peace and prosperity of the free world. With wars in the Middle East and Europe and humanitarian crises on nearly every continent, the world needs American leadership.

How do House Republicans respond? They respond by introducing a bill that cuts international disaster assistance

programs by $1.3 billion, cuts international financial institutions by $583 million, and cuts $362 million from programs to improve maternal and child health and fight infectious diseases. By cutting funding, ultimately, for the United Nations and other multilateral investments, this bill is a reversal of our country's historic position among the nations where we stand as a beacon for democracy and liberty.

Then we have H.R. 8752, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2025. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this bill will secure our border. It will not. The bill falls short of our responsibility to provide for the safety and security of Americans. Ultimately, it disinvests, decreases funding, for a variety of critical programs designed to prevent threats from terrorists, transnational criminals, foreign adversaries, and violent extremists.

My colleagues, Mr. Speaker, do not want to secure the border. How do we know that? Because they had a chance to do precisely that just a few short months ago. They had a chance to do that with the Senate's bipartisan border plan. What did House Republicans do instead? They ensured that that bipartisan deal never even received a vote at the behest of their leader, former President Trump.

The proposal under consideration this week that Republicans have put on the floor cuts the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office by $48 million. It cuts the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center by $10.4 million.

Ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, why would House Republicans put a bill on the floor that cuts Federal law enforcement training programs? It is a fair question.

The bill includes no funds for targeted violence and terrorism prevention grants and the shelter and services program. It cuts family reunification efforts by $33.9 million.

At bottom, Mr. Speaker, this is another wasted opportunity, in my view, for House Republicans to address what they say is a top priority: border security.

Finally, the rule includes H.R. 8774, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. This bill is extreme even by House Republican standards. Usually, in my experience, it has been the Rules Committee that has been responsible for, for lack of a better phrase, messing up these massive bipartisan efforts, at least during the 118th Congress under Republican control, but my colleagues in the majority on the Rules Committee didn't even get the opportunity to do that with respect to this bill because it came out of committee as a terrible piece of legislation.

It divides the country. It undermines national security. It includes provisions that fail to support service personnel. The bill cuts civilian positions at a time when the Department is struggling to meet readiness goals. A number of extreme policy riders that have been included within the bill target reproductive care for women, the LGBTQ community, and more. Finally, it fails to invest in a number of different important programs critical to our national security.

It is a bill, unfortunately, detached from reality, and of course the elephant in the room, what we all know to be true, is that it has no chance of becoming law.

Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. These three bills that we are considering this week have no chance of becoming law. The rest of this is theater.

What I would implore my colleagues to do is come back to the negotiating table. Let's negotiate and compromise in good faith and abandon this approach that they have unfortunately taken for the better part of the last 19 months in the 118th Congress, which has ultimately led to this Congress being the least productive in 100 years, in the history of this House.

Let's pursue solutions, not stunts.

I encourage my colleagues to perhaps follow that admonition. I suspect they won't, but hope springs eternal that they will get back to working with us so that we can get back to governing.

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

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

The chairman said quite a bit there for me to respond to. I simply say with respect to the deficit, here is an article from just 2 days ago, June 24, 2024, in Axios. The headline reads: ``Trump ran up national debt twice as much as Biden: new analysis.'' I will just read the first sentence. ``Former President Trump ran up the national debt by about twice as much as President Biden, according to a new analysis of their fiscal track records.'' Facts are facts, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the previous question, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question today, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would restore the nationwide right to abortion care.

This Monday was the 2-year anniversary of the Dobbs decision, a decision that left millions of women without the reproductive rights and protections provided in Roe v. Wade for decades.

It is clear the far right won't stop there. Not only do the bills in this rule, the rule we are considering today, include restrictions on care for our servicemembers, restrictions on care for women and families abroad, restrictions on funding to end maternal deaths, but also, just for the record, an amendment was offered by one of my Republican colleagues to ban IVF treatments for servicemembers.

Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. As States across our country create confusion and chaos by enacting Republican policies that I have described, House Democrats are fighting to protect our freedoms. H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act, would ensure that fundamental reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, is available across the country.

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

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. D'Esposito). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Tokuda), a friend and colleague who has been a national leader on this issue, among many others.

Mr. Speaker, only in Washington can one argue that they would like to secure the border by advocating for the passage of a bill that they claim will fund border operations and then include in that bill a provision that prevents it from ever being considered by the Senate unless the Senate does its bidding and passes a completely separate bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Scott to be an intellectually honest debater and Member, and I wonder maybe perhaps he will indulge me in a bit of a colloquy because I take him at his word that he believes that we have a crisis on the southern border.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman for the purpose of a colloquy.

That is the way you have described it, Mr. Scott, is that right?

Do you honestly believe that this homeland appropriations bill that we are considering, the funding bill, that it would ameliorate that crisis?

Mr. Scott, I am asking you about the bill we are considering here today. It is the bill that you are championing here on the floor, the homeland appropriations bill. I take it you believe in this bill.

Mr. Scott, if that is the case, and if you feel so passionate about the funding allocations in this bill, then why will the bill be held hostage the moment it passes this Chamber?

If this bill passes the House tomorrow, Mr. Scott, when will this bill be sent to the United States Senate?

The next day, the next week, the next month, or the next year?

Reclaiming my time, I ask because under the provisions of this bill, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have written that the homeland appropriations bill will go nowhere until the United States Senate passes a completely different and separate bill that has only garnered less than one-third of support from the United States.

It makes no sense, and it is nonsensical to pass a funding bill for homeland security, for Border Patrol, for TSA, and for FEMA, and then to hold that bill hostage and not allow the Senate to take it up. Any Member who votes for this appropriation bill is doing precisely that. It is nonsensical.

I heard another one of my colleagues come to the floor and defend this practice. It is intellectually disingenuous to suggest that this is normal practice of the House.

Let me read you a quote, Mr. Speaker: ``This cheapens the process, and I can't believe we are doing this again.'' Let me repeat: ``This cheapens the process, and I can't believe we are doing this again.''

Those aren't my words. Those are the words of a Republican Congressman, Tom Massie, yesterday, in the Rules Committee who was honest in his criticism of the approach that House Republicans are taking by continuing to put this gimmick provision within the rule.

If the other side wants to take up a debate about policy with respect to our southern border, then let's have the debate. Don't hold hostage compensation for Border Patrol and Federal employees securing our border and keeping our communities safe. That is not the way to govern.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Rhode Island (Mr. Amo).

Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks I will deliver prior to closing, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comments made by my colleague from Missouri, there is certainly no confusion on our side of the aisle, no confusion whatsoever. Republicans have said that they would like to address the crisis on our southern border, and they tanked a bipartisan border bill that was negotiated by some of the more prominent conservative members of the Senate Republican Conference. They did that at the behest of the former President.

Now, House Republicans have asked the House to consider and to pass an appropriations bill but have decided they will take their own appropriations bill hostage, as they did a year ago, unless and until the Senate passes a different piece of legislation. That piece of legislation, as the gentleman knows, could not get majority support from the Senate Republican Conference.

By way of background, yes, House Republicans have a majority, a dwindling majority, here in the House of Representatives. They are in the minority in the United States Senate. Of course, as the gentleman knows, they do not have a Republican President in the White House. So, compromise and thoughtful negotiation will be required to get anything done in this Congress. Holding your own bill hostage until the Senate passes a separate bill is not that.

What my friend from Georgia fails to mention as he talks about if and when the Senate may pass H.R. 2, which I understand he is very passionate about, is that Border Patrol agents will go unpaid in the meantime. TSA agents will go unpaid in the meantime.

That is my objection. My objection is to the process that House Republicans have created and crafted, and it is a bipartisan objection. I am not the only one making it.

As I said, Representative Massie, I thought, articulated well the concerns with respect to this approach. He and I don't agree on a lot, but we certainly agree on this. A gimmick like this that holds a bill of this consequence hostage does not make sense.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the question on the minds of the American people, certainly the question on my mind, is: Why do we go through this same partisan process with every major piece of legislation? Why do House Republican leaders force us to go through 6 months of theatrics before we pass the final bipartisan funding bills?

We know how this story ends. It is literally always this same plot. Act one, Members of Congress engage in a bipartisan process and work through proposed legislation in their respective subcommittees. Act two, the committee holds a markup. In many cases, those bills retain bipartisan support. Then, act three, the bills make their way to the Rules Committee, where chaos unfolds. Enter all the partisan policy riders, the late-night, closed-door meetings, the usual Republican in- fighting, and so forth. This same process has resulted in Republican leadership having to rely on votes from House Democrats to govern at every turn.

Just so we are clear, House Democrats ensured that the U.S. didn't default on its debt last year. House Democrats kept the government funded. House Democrats carried the vote for the fiscal year 2024 NDAA. House Democrats got the national security supplemental to the President's desk.

It is clear to me and all those watching that House Democrats remain committed to governing, and we will continue to do so because our communities deserve and demand it. We will stand firm against legislation that would harm American citizens, our global standing, and the servicemembers who sacrifice everything to protect us.

In the end, the reality is that this institution will rely once again on the strong, principled leadership of Leader Jeffries, Ranking Member DeLauro, and the other four corners to put together a sensible deal.

It is unfortunate that we are wasting valuable time on these bills instead of engaging in a bipartisan process from the start. Again, I urge my Republican colleagues to get serious about this government funding process.

The far right is clearly putting us again, Mr. Speaker, on a path toward yet another government shutdown showdown in September. It is what they want. It is what they are driving us toward. My Republican colleagues have a chance, an opportunity, to prevent that. I urge them to take it. They can do that by opposing 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, I missed a recorded vote on On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 1316. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 283.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I thank my friends and Gun Violence Prevention Task Force leaders, Congresswoman Lucy McBath and Congressman Mike Thompson, for convening us this evening. They both have been unwavering in their dedication to ending the scourge of gun violence in this country.

I want to take a moment in particular to salute and applaud my friend Representative McBath, who, as you heard, Mr. Speaker, has shown a remarkable amount of courage, bravery, and tenacity in converting her anguish, unspeakable, unthinkable anguish, into action to save lives. We couldn't be more proud of her and the work that she has done since she first graced the Halls of this august body and made ending gun violence a priority of not just hers but of this House.

Mr. Speaker, in a country where gun violence is the leading cause of death among children--I will repeat that just to let it sink in, gun violence is the leading cause of death among children in the United States--it comes as no surprise that, today, the Surgeon General declared that gun violence in America now constitutes a public health crisis.

My district, Mr. Speaker, has been acutely impacted by that crisis, by the pain of the gun violence epidemic.

A gunman, 3 years ago, walked into a local grocery store in my community in Boulder, Colorado. He killed, murdered in cold blood, ten of our beloved community members, including a police officer, who made the ultimate sacrifice, saved lives, died in the line of duty. This tragedy and the shock waves that it has spurred across my State serve as a reminder of why we as a Congress cannot abandon our mission to end this epidemic.

My community, Mr. Speaker, is not alone. From Uvalde to Buffalo, from

Parkland to Sandy Hook, to every corner of our country, there are communities just like ours with families devastated by the pain and anguish caused by gun violence and Members, as you have heard, of this very Chamber who have experienced devastating loss as a result of this epidemic. It is with those we have lost in our hearts and at the forefront of our minds that we remain committed to ensuring that we turn such anguish into action.

As mentioned, Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago today, many of us joined President Biden at the White House. I remember going to the White House with my colleague Representative McBath, to celebrate the enactment of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which Representative McBath, Representative Robin Kelly, Representative Steven Horsford, so many of the leaders from whom will be heard from tonight, along with Representative Haley Stevens and others, have worked vociferously to get across the finish line. This bill is the most significant and consequential gun violence prevention legislation that we have seen in decades.

Through this bill, we were able to enact improved and enhanced background checks, protect domestic violence survivors, expand community violence intervention programs, and support improved mental health services across the country. Mr. Speaker, we know that legislating works.

I am here today with leaders, like Representative Kennedy of Buffalo, Representative Manning from North Carolina, Representative Stevens, and Representative McBath, and so many others to repeat the call that House Democrats have made time and time again, to say that we are ready to work in good faith with anyone to address what is clearly a pervasive problem across our country, to advance commonsense reforms that we know will save lives. It is time for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, House Republicans, to do the same, to work with us because inaction is no longer an option.

Again, I thank Representative McBath, Representative Thompson, and the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force for their work in addressing our most basic charge as Members of this body, which is to keep Americans safe.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, our former Caucus chair, for his clarion call that he has issued year after year, month after month, and day after day to protect and strengthen Social Security.

It couldn't be more important, and we couldn't be more grateful for his leadership and the leadership of so many of my colleagues who have joined us tonight on the House floor to talk to the American people about the ways in which House Democrats are protecting critical programs like Social Security and Medicare and the myriad ways in which, unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing the exact opposite.

I will give you but one example, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the latter. I know you are familiar with the Republican Study Committee, the largest caucus within the Republican Conference. I don't know if the American people are familiar with it.

Eighty percent of the Republican Conference consider themselves members of this committee. A hundred percent of House Republican leadership count themselves among the members of this committee. The former chairman of the Republican Study Committee is now the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Why do I bring up the Republican Study Committee? Well, it might interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that just 2 months ago, the Republican Study Committee issued a budget for 2025. Again, this is a committee that has 80 percent of the Republican Conference in its membership. This backward budget plan is incredibly revealing.

What does it do? It upends critical programs that American families depend on, makes draconian cuts to Medicare and Social Security with a plan that increases the retirement age to 69, forcing Americans to work longer for less, a plan that cuts disability benefits and erodes care for children, making it more expensive to care for our families.

Their plan raises Medicare costs for seniors, takes away the program's ability to negotiate prescription drug costs, and repeals the $35 insulin and the $2,000 out-of-pocket caps that House Democrats, the Members gathered here on the floor this evening, fought so vigorously to enact in the 117th Congress.

Just to be clear, Mr. Speaker, although we are here tonight to talk about Social Security and Medicare and our efforts to protect, strengthen, and expand both of those programs, and Republican efforts to dismantle them, it is worth noting that this is Police Week. Notwithstanding the many statements made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle concerning their purported support of law enforcement, their budget tells a very different story. Why? How? I encourage every American to go to page 148 of the Republican Study Committee's budget. What you will find is clear, unambiguous, plain language that states that they would like to reduce funding for community-oriented policing services, the COPS Program, a program that the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania has fought to expand for years, a program that is funding the hiring of law enforcement officers in my district in Colorado and countless other jurisdictions across our great country, a program that is critical to law enforcement's abilities to provide for public safety in our country, and a program that they intend to cut.

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, insofar as one were to glean essential observation from a review, a cursory review of their budget, it is simple: House Republicans are uninterested in tackling issues that matter to the American people.

We will not let them cut Social Security. We won't let them cut Medicare. We won't let them cut law enforcement funding. That much is clear.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say one of the many privileges I have in serving as assistant Democratic leader is having the opportunity to see firsthand the way in which my colleagues in the House Democratic Caucus are able to convert their passion and conviction on consequential public policy issues into action. That is precisely what the gentleman from Connecticut has done for the better part of the last decade, from when he first introduced this legislation.

I am proud to support it. I am proud to support his efforts to protect and enhance Social Security and to do everything that we can to ensure that our colleagues' plans on the other side of the aisle to dismantle this program never see the light of day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and friend from Connecticut for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today is a serious day, a serious moment for this institution. Apparently, according to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the House Republicans, we are gathered here today to discuss a very consequential question, a consequential issue facing the country, Madam Speaker: home appliances. Toasters, microwaves, and refrigerators are the topics, Madam Speaker, that House Republicans have chosen to waste this institution's time on.

Of all the challenges facing the country, of all the issues facing our community, apparently their top priority is the so-called Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act.

Madam Speaker, you may recall that Republicans noticed a Rules Committee meeting on this very same bill just a few weeks ago. That bill was then hastily removed. We assumed it was because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were essentially shamed into pulling it from the agenda, that they realized a bill on home appliances probably doesn't meet the moment, considering all the real crises that we have going on. Apparently, that shame only lasted for a few weeks because today's legislation, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, is back for round two.

Just to be clear, Madam Speaker--I know you are aware of this--this is a package deal. This isn't the only appliance bill that Republicans have noticed for this body to consider. The Liberty in Laundry Act is the real title of a bill that House Republicans would like this body to consider, as well as the Refrigerator Freedom Act, the Clothes Dryers Reliability Act, the Affordable Air Conditioning Act, the Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act. Those bills, I guess, didn't make the cut for this particular rules debate. I suppose we will take those up next week.

Madam Speaker, this House should be focused on addressing the consequential challenges of our time, not on political games and messaging bills.

How far this body has fallen. The same august Chamber where James Madison and Abraham Lincoln once served is now debasing itself, debating the fate of microwaves and toaster ovens because that is how House Republicans have decided to spend their time and their majority.

My colleagues, regrettably, unfortunately, are out of touch with the priorities of the American people. The

American people expect, rightfully so, for this Chamber to address the issues that they care about, not waste time on nonsense bills.

By the way, Madam Speaker, the rest of the measures that we will consider today, unfortunately, are more of the same. H.R. 7109, the so- called Equal Representation Act, is plainly unconstitutional. Any plain reading of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment makes clear that this bill is unconstitutional. House Republicans are pushing forward anyway.

Another bill that we are considering today is yet another CRA, this time on apparently a bulletin that was issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission. I have lost count of how many days we have wasted in the last 17 months considering CRAs. Every week, another CRA is submitted by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

One would have hoped, Mr. Speaker, that House Republicans would have learned their lesson a year ago after wasting our time on CRAs for the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat, that perhaps this House could focus its attention on more substantive matters. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the last bill that this body will consider this week, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, is a bill that I know is familiar to you, Mr. Speaker. It is to me. We voted on a rule about this particular bill 7 days ago.

Why is it back before us a week later? I will tell you why. Republican leadership has lost control of the Rules Committee. They lost control months ago. Now, they often lack a procedural majority here on the House floor.

Last week, our colleague, Representative Leger Fernandez, introduced a motion to recommit. The motion to recommit was very simple. It pointed out the fact that the Republicans' mining bill would allow foreign adversarial nations to mine American land for free. What happened to that motion to recommit? It passed. Six Republicans joined every Democrat in supporting that motion to recommit.

Those familiar with ``Schoolhouse Rock!'' would understand that that means the bill goes back to committee, the House Committee on Natural Resources, where I serve, Mr. Speaker, and where you serve, so that we could work out the issues that this body, on a bipartisan basis, identified with this bill 7 days ago. Instead, House Republicans have brought the very same bill back to this body for its consideration without going to the Natural Resources Committee.

I have no idea how the six Republicans who voted for the motion to recommit last week can possibly defend or rationalize a vote against the motion to recommit this week. I suppose we are going to find out.

Mr. Speaker, there are better ways for this Chamber to be spending its time. I implore the Speaker and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Let's get serious. Let's work together to address some of the consequential challenges that face our respective States and our country. Let's stop with these nonsense bills. I implore you.

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

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

Just two quick points. One, with respect to everything that my colleague from New York just articulated, this bill has nothing to do with noncitizens voting. It does not address that whatsoever. I am not sure what bill the gentleman from New York was talking about, but it is not the bill that this body is considering.

Secondly, I would just say, with respect to comments made by my friend from Indiana, I think she used the phrase ``woke agenda.'' Apparently, appliances are now woke, according to my colleagues. I don't know what a woke microwave or a woke refrigerator looks like, but that is the new target of House Republicans.

It is good to know we are going to be spending hours on the floor this week debating the future of woke microwaves. The House Republican agenda is coming to a home near you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say that insofar as my colleague from Indiana wants to have a debate about climate change or a debate about electric vehicles or renewable energy, I am certainly open, and I welcome that debate. I suspect it would be a robust one.

That is not the debate that Republicans have initiated on the House floor. The debate this week is about freedom for refrigerators. Again, these are not bills that we conceived of. They are Republican bills.

So the notion that this debate is focused or centered on some of what the gentlewoman from Indiana described is just not consistent with the bills that are actually before the House.

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, just to be clear, the argument made by my colleague from Indiana with respect to the last argument made, the supposed legal argument, is completely without merit. It contravenes the plain language of the 14th Amendment and generations of precedent. So the notion that somehow the arguments we are making to follow the plain text of the Constitution and the way in which the 14th Amendment has been construed for generations, that that argument would not govern

this particular debate to me just doesn't hold water.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure every woman has full access to essential reproductive healthcare including abortion care.

Far too many States have enacted laws to either ban some or all abortions which Republicans have declared numerous times is their goal.

So while my Republican colleague wants to debate freedom and choice when it comes to household appliances, microwaves, I will give them a chance here today to instead ensure freedom and choice in reproductive healthcare for women across this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, to discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), who has been a tireless leader on this issue among so many others from California.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is not particularly complicated. Since 1790 and the first population tally done in the United States, citizens and noncitizens have been included. Never before has the 14th Amendment been construed as the way that the gentlewoman from Indiana proposes now. It is a radical view that is not supported by the plain text of the Constitution or the amendments thereof.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Mr. Speaker, not to belabor the point, but when the gentlewoman from Indiana uses the phrase ``current practice,'' what she is referring to is the entirety of American history.

Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. For hundreds of years, this is the way population counts have been done. That is why the current practice is consistent with the plain reading of the 14th Amendment, a plain reading of the Constitution, and hundreds of years of precedent. What House Republicans are proposing is a radical departure from it.

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 to close.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule is, unfortunately, a testament to the House Republican playbook since assuming the majority--chaos, political theater, and infighting. This Republican-controlled House has passed the lowest number of laws for the first year of session in nearly 100 years. It is safe to say it is the least productive Congress in any of our lifetimes.

House Republicans have been focused on other priorities: A baseless, politically motivated impeachment inquiry into the President that went nowhere; impeachment proceedings against the Secretary of Homeland Security, which were immediately dismissed by the Senate, the first time that the Senate has dismissed Articles of Impeachment without trial after the reading; and now microwaves, freedom for refrigerators, and liberty for laundry.

That is the focus of this House Republican majority. It makes sense that Republicans would spend their time on such ridiculous legislative efforts given the chaos that the majority has engulfed this body into-- the vacating of the Speaker 7 months ago, seven rules that have failed on the House floor as Republicans engage in open rebellion against their own leadership.

The American people are tired, Mr. Speaker, of the political stunts and the messaging bills. They are tired of the infighting. They want to see leadership, and that, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what they have seen through the leadership of Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and a united House Democratic Caucus.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that House Democrats have rescued this failing House Republican majority at nearly every turn. It was House Democrats who ensured that the U.S. didn't default on its debt last year, House Democrats who kept the government funded, House Democrats who carried the votes on the NDAA, and House Democrats who got the national security supplemental bill across the finish line and to the President's desk.

At every opportunity, Mr. Speaker, House Democrats have used this Chamber to stand against legislation that would hurt average Americans. While House Republicans are busy fighting each other, House Democrats are fighting for the American people, and we will continue to do that each and every day. We implore our Republican colleagues to join us.

One way my colleagues could do so is to oppose the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bills, and we implore them to do the same.

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.

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, let me thank Representative Jacobs for her determined leadership on this particular issue, among many others.

I stand here today in solidarity with Representative Jacobs, Representative Wild, and the leaders of the Pro-Choice Caucus in the United States Congress to help shine a light, as my colleague from California has done so well, on House Republican hypocrisy.

In February, as we now know, the Alabama Supreme Court issued a dangerous ruling that upended fertility care and opened the door for extremists to push through their destructive agenda.

In the months that followed, as Representative Jacobs referenced, many House Republicans have rushed to this House floor, to any TV camera that they may be able to find, to profess their support for IVF, the reproductive technology in question.

To them, I say the same admonition that Representative Jacobs offered: Their actions have clearly shown otherwise. They have already shown who they are and what they believe.

Make no mistake, Madam Speaker. If given the chance, unfortunately, extreme Members of the Republican Conference will find every opportunity to deprive Americans of their fundamental freedoms, criminalizing abortion nationwide, prosecuting the doctors and nurses willing to perform lifesaving care, and pursuing this dangerous legislation that Representative Jacobs so eloquently described.

We, of course, are already seeing the consequences of that extremism across the country, in Ohio, in Alabama, and in Florida, where just today, a ban on abortion past 6 weeks of pregnancy has taken effect.

Madam Speaker, the American people will not stand for this. House Democrats will not stand for this. We will keep pushing back against these plans to drag Americans back to the laws of the last century, and we will keep working to protect the right of every woman to make her own healthcare decisions.

I again salute Representative Jacobs, and, in particular, I want to salute Representative Wild, who introduced legislation that this body must pass in the days and weeks ahead. I salute her for her leadership and her determination on behalf of every American in our land.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, the so-called WEST Act.

I have great respect for the chairman and the Member who has authored this particular piece of legislation, but we strongly disagree about this particular bill, and I want to tell you why.

First and foremost, just by way of context, we have been on the House floor all day today, the better part of a few hours, debating proposals that the majority has submitted that would roll back environmental protections.

House Republicans want to remove protections for pristine Boundary Waters watershed in Minnesota. They want to eliminate protections for endangered species. As we heard during the last debate, apparently now they want to increase the use of poisonous lead ammunition. This is not what this august body should be spending its time focused on.

Unfortunately, H.R. 3397 is just more of the same. Now, I heard during the presentation by my distinguished colleague on the other side of the aisle reference to hamburgers, the cost of gasoline, and mansions, I believe, none of which have anything to do with this particular bill, Mr. Speaker.

I want to try to explain to the American people what this bill is all about. The Biden administration, in short, has taken steps to enhance public land stewardship. House Republicans are standing in the way.

What do I mean by that? Two weeks ago, on April 18, the Biden administration released the Bureau of Land Management's Conservation and Landscape Health Final Rule, or what has been referred to as the public lands rule.

The rule is a necessary and long overdue update to the agency's framework for public lands management. In particular, the rule will protect clean water, clean air, and wildlife habitat. It will promote the restoration of degraded landscapes. It will ensure that decisions are based on the best available science in collaboration with Tribal, local, and rural communities. That, Mr. Speaker, is progress.

Here is what the bill does not do: It does not disallow or preclude any one of the multiple uses that the chairman referenced during the opening of this particular debate. As my colleagues on the other side have described the rule, I think I heard the word duplicative. The rule is either duplicative or, in the view of the majority, as they have said, it ends all uses of all land in all of the country. It can't be both.

Clearly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle take issue with this particular rule and its protection of wildlife and its inclusion of conservation. I understand that disagreement, but the American people do not agree with that position.

The Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, just by way of background, manages more than 245 million acres of Federal public land, which is roughly one-tenth of America's land base. In my home State of Colorado, the BLM manages more than 8.3 million acres of land.

Many of those acres are near my district; just by way of example, the Yampa Valley Trail in Moffat County.

This includes, by the way, national conservation lands, a collection of revered, treasured landscapes, recreation destinations, other special places that are managed to protect resources to us as Americans. These lands stretch across the Rocky Mountain West. Our citizens, our constituents, rely on these lands, and that is why this rule is such a critical development.

It is also why this rule is so popular. Mr. Speaker, over 90 percent of the comments received during the extensive public comment period were positive. Those comments came from local community leaders, outdoor recreation industry, scientists, small businesses, Tribal communities, many others, citizens in my State and States across the West. They want to see our public lands managed in a balanced and sustainable manner that will promote access and resilience, and that is exactly what the Biden administration has achieved with this new rule and why I am proud to support it.

Now, again, I don't want to belabor this point, but it bears repeating. Despite the claims from my Republican colleagues, the plain language of this rule does not prioritize one use over another. It does not do that. I encourage any American who wishes to learn more to look at the plain language of the rule. It simply puts conservation on equal footing with livestock grazing, mining, and oil and gas development. It doesn't block or stifle development. It achieves a critical balance, and that balance is important; a reasonable balance, a prudent balance.

I support this rule because it will enable us to make science-based and informed decisions about the management of our Nation's public lands. I would encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule for the same reason. If they do, I would encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill, which seeks to undermine those efforts, and to oppose the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, look, I have, again, great respect for the chairman and the gentleman from Utah who just spoke, but balance is exactly what we are trying to achieve. As a Representative from the West, I can tell you that my constituents support this rule, as do the vast majority of folks out West.

There have been these repeated references to Washington. I think the phrase was Washington bureaucrats. I don't know about the gentleman from Utah. Perhaps he doesn't have a relationship with the land management in his State. I certainly have a very productive and robust relationship with our BLM partners in Colorado, including the Western headquarters, which is based in Grand Junction, Colorado--one of the reasons, by the way, that one of the comment sessions, the forums hosted by the BLM with respect to the rulemaking on this particular rule, was held in Colorado.

The agency is listening to the folks on the ground, to citizens, to folks in rural America, to folks in the Rocky Mountain West, to hunters and anglers who, by the way, also support this rule.

There have been multiple references to this notion that somehow, by the BLM promulgating this rule, that enables multiple use and does not put one use ahead of another, that that would somehow negatively implicate hunters or anglers--not true.

How do we know it is not true? Because the back-country hunters and anglers sent a letter yesterday to the Speaker of the House. I will read from it:

We strongly urge the House of Representatives to vote

``no'' on these bills. The bills that they are referencing

include, among others, the WEST Act.

In particular, I will again read from their letter, not my words:

H.R. 3397, that is the WEST Act, would prohibit the

implementation of the recently finalized BLM public lands

rule. Hunters and anglers widely supported this forward-

looking, comprehensive rule that will have a meaningful

impact on fish and wildlife habitat by prioritizing

conservation and restoration alongside other types of land

use.

This is a reasonable rule. It is a prudent rule that unfortunately is being threatened by this extreme bill that I don't think the majority of the American people will support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

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

I would just simply add, and then I know we will continue with this debate, but echoing the sentiments of my colleague from California, there have been repeated, in my view, misstatements about the full ambit of the BLM rule.

To be crystal clear, this is from the executive summary of the rule, it says: ``To support efforts to protect and restore public lands, the proposed rule clarifies that conservation is a use on par with other uses of the public lands under FLPMA's multiple-use and sustained-yield framework.''

This is later in the same summary: ``The rule does not prioritize conservation above other uses. Instead, it provides for considering and, where appropriate, implementing or authorizing conservation. . . .'' on an equal footing with other uses consistent with the plain language of FLPMA. That is from the rule. Context matters, and I think it is an important clarification.

Lastly, I would say, Mr. Speaker, there was some commentary with respect to the full spectrum of engagement by the BLM with citizens across the country as it was promulgating this rule and reference was made to the locations where these forums were held.

I trust that the chairman, my good friend from Arkansas, has been to the communities that he listed--I certainly have--to Reno, to Albuquerque, and to Denver, and I can tell him that every one of those municipalities is nestled within 10, 15, 20, 25 miles of extensive lands that are managed both by the BLM and the Forest Service. How do I know? Because I live in Colorado, and I happen to represent many acres of land managed by the BLM.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

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

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

I would just simply say, again, there have been a number of misstatements with respect to the constitutionality and the statutory authority of this particular rule that has been promulgated by the BLM.

It is clearly constitutional. It is consistent with the statutory authority that Congress has ultimately conveyed to the BLM via FLPMA. You don't have to take my word for it. You can read the statute. Section 302 very clearly states that the agency has the authority to ultimately ensure multiple use by ``the management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.''

Now, that phrase arguably could be nebulous to some. Well, the good news is that Congress did, in fact, clarify what those present and future needs of the American people happen to be. Again, I will quote from the statute: ``The use of some land for less than all of the resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural, scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the . . . productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.''

That is the statute. You have the statutory authority supporting a rule that by its plain language simply puts conservation on par with other uses. This is not complicated.

The American people support this rule. Hunters and anglers support this rule. Recreationists support this rule. Constituents in Colorado and States across the West support this rule, and so should the Congress.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have participated in a lot of debates during my time in Congress. This has got to be one of the most confounding for me, because repeatedly, unfortunately, I have colleagues, friends on the other side of the aisle, making statements about what this rule does when the plain language of the rule says the exact opposite.

There are folks here in the gallery, I suspect, who are just as confused as I am. One need look no further than the plain language of the rule. The rule says that it is putting conservation on par with these other uses. Grazing is allowed under the rule. Oil and gas development is allowed under the rule. Conservation is allowed under the rule.

If my colleagues don't want conservation considered by the BLM with respect to how these lands are managed, which is clearly what they believe, then they should just say so.

They should just be candid with the American people that they don't think these lands should be managed with conservation in mind at all. I disagree with that view, and the American people disagree with that view, but that is an intellectually honest position.

Be that as it may, don't mischaracterize the rule that the agency ultimately promulgated because the American people can see it for themselves. They can read the same plain language that I have read repeatedly on the House floor over the course of the last hour of debate.

Mr. Speaker, Congress charged the Bureau of Land Management with seeking balance statutorily. That is the word we used in the statute giving BLM its authority: ``so that they are utilized in a combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.'' That is what the Biden administration has done with respect to the development of this rule.

When we had the hearing on this bill in the Natural Resources Committee, a constituent of mine testified in support of the bill. Eagle County Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry said that she made the trip to Washington to be here to support this particular rule.

I think her testimony said it best, so I will quote it here: ``I support the BLM's proposed public lands rule. It will empower the agency to deliver on its multiple-use mandate by placing conservation values on equal footing with other uses on our public lands.''

That is it. People in Colorado, in my State, in my district, and throughout the West rely on our public lands for a wide variety of uses and benefits.

I speak with some authority on this particular subject because I represent a congressional district that is larger than eight States in the Union. That includes over 40 percent of it being public lands managed by the BLM and the Forest Service. When I talk about the need to prioritize resilience and balance, I speak about it on behalf of those communities that I am so honored to represent.

I appreciate the dialogue that we have had with my colleague from Utah and, of course, with my friend, the chairman from Arkansas, but I respectfully disagree with respect to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that perhaps my colleagues will see the light and vote against H.R. 3397. I certainly will be. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick) for her leadership. I also thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Chairman Horsford, and all of my colleagues gathered today to honor a great man, a kind man, and a good man, our beloved

colleague, Congressman Donald Payne, Jr.

With incredible style and a bone-deep optimism that was truly contagious, Don was a kind and gentle giant in the people's House. His dedication to the people of New Jersey was inspiring. His good-natured spirit and his humor were a comfort to us all.

Don used his voice, often standing in this very Chamber--delivering more speeches in the people's House in this Congress than any other Member of this august body--to elevate the issues that matter to his community, the people of New Jersey, and the American people. His impact has been felt and will be felt by countless folks across the State of New Jersey and across our great country, including those who benefited from his efforts to expand access to safe drinking water, to implement better pay and safer working conditions, and to do so much more.

Above all else, he was a kind, good, and decent man.

I was proud to call him a friend, as we all were. As we prepare to lay him to rest, our hearts go out to his wife, Beatrice, and their triplets.

May they find comfort in their loving memories of a good, kind, and decent man.

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

I thank my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), for the customary 30 minutes.

(Mr. NEGUSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, today's rule, as Mr. Massie articulated, again provides for the consideration of four bills.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that you will be familiar with these four bills because these four bills were under a rule 2 days ago.

What happened to that rule? It failed, and that is part and parcel of the chaos and dysfunction that House Republicans have engulfed this august Chamber in for the better part of the last 15 months.

As of 2 days ago, seven rules--seven--have failed on the House floor, Mr. Speaker. You might be wondering and those watching from home might be wondering how many rules failed when Democrats had the majority under Speaker Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi.

In fact, from 1999 to 2023, only two rules failed on the House floor, neither of which happened when House Democrats were in control of this Chamber.

The last bill, Mr. Speaker, to pass the Rules Committee and make its way to the President's desk without suspension of our rules was almost 1 year ago. That is unprecedented.

It is not hyperbole to say that Republicans have literally presided over the most ineffective session of Congress in history.

Despite, by the way, Mr. Speaker, the pressing challenges that our Nation faces, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle repeatedly show that Republicans have no capacity or desire to govern, instead prioritizing unwarranted censures, sham impeachments, and nonbinding resolution after nonbinding resolution.

Instead of debating core issues, like lowering costs, growing the middle class, building safer communities, addressing our critical national security needs, we have spent yet another week here in Washington wasting time.

This is the third time that we are considering a variation of one of these nonbinding resolutions today. Stunts over solutions, Mr. Speaker, has become unfortunately, the majority's motto. This is not how governing is supposed to work.

I have served in this body for some time now. I know there are serious Members on the other side of the aisle. I wish Republicans would pull back their caucus and this institution from the brink and work with us in a bipartisan way to address core needs of the American people. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have yet to show any desire to do so, but hope springs eternal.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), the chairman of the distinguished Rules Committee, I must say I am confounded by the audacity of any House Republican to come to the floor and lecture any of us about national security when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have held hostage a bill that passed the United States Senate on a bipartisan basis to address the national security needs of this country. For months, the majority has held that bill hostage and refuse to put the bill on the floor.

Republicans also have the audacity to come to the floor and lecture us or the White House. The White House needs no reminder about the necessity of supporting our allies. My colleagues have implored this institution to do its job in supporting our allies abroad. It is the Speaker and the House Republican caucus that refuse to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague from Wisconsin. We served together on the Subcommittee on Federal Lands, and I certainly agree with him about the preservation of liberty and the importance of liberty in our founding documents as the core fabric, core threat in our country, but I must also just say that I don't think the American people share House Republicans' priorities. Let me explain why.

On Monday, the Rules Committee will be meeting to consider a number of bills. House Republicans put out a notice yesterday what those bills would include. Let me just give you a sampling, Mr. Speaker: the Refrigerator Freedom Act, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, the Clothes Dryers Reliability Act, and--this may be my favorite--the Liberty in Laundry Act.

While I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin's very passionate defense of liberty, I am not so sure the American people had that in mind. I don't think they are thinking of the Liberty in Laundry Act. I think they expect this House Republican majority to actually address the consequential challenges that face our country, not waste time on petty games and nonsense bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the passion of the speakers on the other side of the aisle, including the gentlewoman from Wyoming, but facts matter, Mr. Speaker. And this body must dispense with the notion that any of this, the ills that they have spent all this time describing, are attributable to the Biden administration.

Mr. Speaker, I will read you a quote. This is from January 2018: ``I would have preferred a permanent reauthorization''--let me repeat that--``permanent reauthorization of title VII to protect the safety and security of the Nation. By signing this act today, however, I am ensuring that this lawful and essential intelligence program will continue to protect Americans for at least the next 6 years. We cannot let our guard down in the face of foreign threats to our safety, our freedom, and our way of life,'' President Donald J. Trump.

I understand we are going to have robust debates about the mechanics and the nuances with respect to this particular bill but spare us lectures about the need for a shorter runway and a shorter reauthorization, when the former President, whom apparently the House Republican caucus continues to take orders from, made clear and abundant his desire for a permanent reauthorization of this program with none of these reforms, by the way. None of them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to read from an article from a few days ago. This is from FOX 5 in Atlanta. The headline: ``Marjorie Taylor Greene standing by eclipse, NE Earthquake comments.''

``Georgia Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene is standing by comments she made about last week's earthquake in the Northeast and Monday's eclipse.''

Yes, sir.

No, I am addressing the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am reading an article, a newspaper article. Has that become objectionable now in this body?

I thank the Speaker. I will dispense with it quickly. I will just simply say, again, this is quoting from the article here that: ``The Republican Representative then posted on X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter, that `God is sending America strong signs to tell us to repent.' Greene also pointed to Monday's eclipse, saying there are `many more things to come.'''

To the extent that my friend from Kentucky was looking for me to make a connection here to the debate that we are having, I suspect it is self-evident, but I am not so sure that the American people should necessarily be taking much stock into the arguments that are being made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including from the speaker that we just heard from.

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

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

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

Again, I am going to go through this list of bills that they have noticed for Monday: the Liberty in Laundry Act, the Clothes Dryer Reliability Act, and the Refrigerator Freedom Act. I can assure the gentleman from Ohio, I don't think any of the American people believe that he works in a think tank, given these bills that they have apparently noticed for this House to consider next week.

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

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

Today's rule, put simply, is a testament to the Republican playbook since assuming the majority 15 months ago: chaos, gridlock, and infighting. Over the past year, honestly, it has been difficult to understand what my colleagues across the aisle truly want.

At the beginning of this Congress, the other side of the aisle voted for a House rules package that they promised would entail an open rules process for amendments, yet this Congress is on pace to have more closed rules than any Congress in the last 100 years, over a century.

A minority of House Republicans now dictate what proposals will even have a chance to be considered in this Chamber, to stand in the marketplace of ideas that our colleagues claim to love so dearly.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle reject compromises at every turn. My Republican colleagues rejected a bipartisan immigration deal that came out of the Senate before even reading the bill text. The bill passed with 70 votes, Mr. Speaker, in the United States Senate.

Our allies around the world have literally been left stranded, and House Republicans won't even bring the bill up for an up-or-down vote. Instead, their top priority is the Refrigerator Freedom Act, Mr. Speaker.

The American people deserve better. They expect better. Enough of the political stunts. Enough of the infighting. Let's get back to work, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and the rule, and 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 let me thank the distinguished gentleman, my good friend, from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, whose leadership with respect to addressing the scourge of gun violence that has, unfortunately, taken hold in so many parts of our country, has been unparalleled since he first stepped into this august Chamber last year.

We are grateful for his service, we are grateful for his leadership, and we are grateful for him initiating this important conversation tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that there are many constituents of mine who are frustrated, who are outraged, who are anguished at the inaction of this body to address an issue as fundamental as this one.

What could be more important, Mr. Speaker, than the safety of our families, of our friends, of our neighbors, of our colleagues, of our children, of our fellow citizens.

This Congress has a job to do, and that job must include addressing gun violence and enacting commonsense reforms that we know will save lives.

I have the distinct privilege, Mr. Speaker, of representing the great State of Colorado, and we have been no stranger to the anguish of gun violence.

Next week will mark the 25th anniversary of the tragic and devastating massacre at Columbine High School. Mr. Speaker, 13 Coloradans murdered in cold blood, 12 students, and 1 teacher, 25 years ago next week.

Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, my community was devastated by yet another mass shooting at our local grocery store. Mr. Speaker, 10 community members gunned down, including 1 police officer, who bravely died in the line of duty, saving lives, making the ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, we have lost far too many. There are far too many mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, children, Americans, dying from gun violence. We have the power to stop it if we follow the articulate admonition of my friend and colleague, Mr. McGarvey, by passing commonsense solutions here in this Chamber.

For those who doubt our ability to do so, Mr. Speaker, I will point you to fairly recent history.

There were many, many who doubted the ability of the United States Congress and the President to enact laws, commonsense laws that ultimately would and could save lives. They were wrong.

Because of President Biden's leadership, we passed a bill in the last Congress, the 117th Congress, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. That law is saving lives today.

Earlier today, the White House, next to the leadership of President Biden, Vice President Harris, the leadership of our attorney general, Attorney General Garland, announced yet another reform, a new rule pursuant to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act that will finally close the gun show loophole, an important step forward, Mr. Speaker, and one that I applaud. I hope, I sincerely hope that it can be a building block for us to take on.

Now, I have to confess, I looked at the notice in the Committee on Rules, the committee on which I serve, with great dismay, just a few hours ago. What did that notice portend for next week? What have House Republicans decided we will spend our time on next week--not gun violence prevention, the Refrigerator Freedom Act.

I kid you not, that is literally on the agenda next week: The Refrigerator Freedom Act.

How about a bill to address gun violence? Is that too much to ask? My constituents don't think so, and I don't think the people of Kentucky think so either.

I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. McGarvey) again for his leadership, for initiating this important conversation. It is the beginning and not the end.