We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
10Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Somalia: Message From the President of the United States (H. Doc. No. 119-38)
11Adjournment
1 member spoke
Daily Digest
Public Bills and Resolutions Introduced
51 public bills, H.R. 2702- 2752; and 9 resolutions, H.J. Res. 91; and H. Res. 300-307, were introduced.
Pages H1504-07
Reports Filed
There were no reports filed today. Speaker: Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Stutzman to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H1465
Recess
The House recessed at 10:55 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H1471
Notification of Intent to Offer Motion to Discharge
Representative Pettersen notified the House of her intent to offer a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XV from the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 164) entitled, a resolution providing for the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 23) permitting parental remote voting by proxy.
Page H1472
Recess
The House recessed at 1:13 p.m. and reconvened at 2 p.m.
Page H1480
Recess
The House recessed at 2 p.m. and reconvened at 2:14 p.m.
Page H1480
No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025
The House considered H.R. 1526, to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief. Consideration is expected to resume tomorrow, April 9th.
Pages H1482-92
Pursuant to the Rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted.
Page H1482
H. Res. 294, the rule providing for consideration of the joint resolutions (S.J. Res. 18) and (S.J. Res. 28) and the bills (H.R. 1526) and (H.R. 22) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 213 ayes to 211 noes, Roll No. 92, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 213 yeas to 211 nays, Roll No. 91.
Pages H1480-81
Committee Elections
The House agreed to H. Res. 300, electing Members to certain standing committees of the House of Representatives.
Pages H1481-82
Meeting Hour
Agreed by unanimous consent that the order of the House of January 3, 2025, regarding morning-hour debate not apply tomorrow, April 9th.
Page H1502
Presidential Message
Received a message from the President transmitting a notification stating that the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13536 of April 12, 2010, with respect to Somalia is to continue in effect beyond April 12, 2025--referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed (H. Doc. 119- 38).
Page H1494
Senate Message
Message received from the Senate appears on pages H1471-72. Quorum Calls--Votes: One yea-and-nay vote and one recorded vote developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages 1480-81 and H1481. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 6:41 p.m.
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 120 of 205 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Morning-Hour Debate
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 3, 2025, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties and each Member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, as Chief Keith Johnson prepares to retire this month, I rise to honor his distinguished career in service to Loudoun County Combined Fire and Rescue System.
Beloved in our Loudoun County community, Chief Johnson is a fourth- generation firefighter who began his fire service in 1982. His career led him to the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department where he ascended to the rank of deputy chief in 2009.
After 30 years in Fairfax County, Chief Johnson was appointed as chief of the Loudoun County Combined Fire and Rescue System in 2018. During his tenure, he led a department of nearly 500 career personnel and more than 1,500 volunteer personnel, oversaw the implementation of a collective bargaining ordinance, created a 24-hour operation shift commander program, and formed a behavioral health section. To cap off his career, Chief Johnson was named Career Fire Chief of the Year in 2024.
Congratulations to Chief Johnson on his exceptional career. We thank Chief Johnson for all his service to our community, and we wish him a happy retirement.
Celebrating Independence High School Varsity Winter Guard's 2025
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the Independence High School Varsity Winter Guard's 2025 scholastic State championship.
This year, their hard work and perseverance paid off. Not only did they place first in their class but they also received the highest overall score out of 60 Virginia high schools that competed.
They made history as the first Loudoun County public high school to ever win a Scholastic A1. I also heard the team's stuffed animal mascot, Thleebuss, deserves a little bit of credit.
We congratulate Coach Harrington, Coach Young, the Winter Guard, and the Independence High School community on their championship.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Richard Martin of Sterling, Virginia, who reached a remarkable milestone last month, his 700th platelet donation. This isn't just a number. It represents lives saved and hope restored.
Richard's journey began in 1982, inspired by his father who donated an incredible 17 gallons of whole blood. For over four decades, Richard has visited his local blood donation clinic every 2 weeks. He is a familiar face to the staff, always bringing his cheerful demeanor and unwavering commitment to the cause.
Today, we celebrate Richard's altruistic spirit and dedication as a platelet donor. He is a shining example of what it means to serve one's neighbors and community.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Chandrashekar Namagondlu. A devoted husband, father, son, and brother, Chandra was the embodiment of joy and a well-lived life. He was a pillar of every community and organization that he was a part of.
He began his career as a network engineer before transitioning into cybersecurity. Over the past 20 years at Visa, he rose to become director of cybersecurity, where he not only was a respected leader but a beloved manager and colleague known for his generosity, mentorship, and unwavering support.
Most of all, his love for his family was insurmountable and deeply felt by all of those he cared for, especially his wife Sreelatha and his daughter, Priya. His memory will live on with those that were touched by his presence.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today less than 1 week after the administration proclaimed April 2 as Liberation Day, a day filled with tariffs that sparked a trade war.
What sort of liberation have we seen since then? In my district alone,
Breweries in my district are being hit. The owner of one small Virginia brewery said that because of tariffs on his aluminum, steel, and other ingredients, they have to raise the price of a six-pack to $19.
The President proclaimed Liberation Day as a declaration of economic independence, but this is doing nothing to protect the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The only thing these tariffs will liberate are rent money and mortgage payments from bank accounts, kids' college savings from investment accounts, and retirement savings from 401k's.
It is not too late to change course and declare Liberation Day as a poorly constructed April Fools' joke.
Mr. Speaker, this is a moment that you don't wish to ever have to do here, but it is time and it is proper that we recognize a fallen officer from the northern California town of Marysville.
Police Officer Osmar Rodarte was a dedicated law enforcement officer. He was a U.S. Army veteran. We lost him in the line of duty in just recent days. He was a loving husband and father. He made the ultimate sacrifice while serving with the Marysville Police Department. Officer Rodarte was taken from us at the tender age of just 27 years old.
He was a proud graduate of Rio Linda High School, class of 2016. He answered the call to serve, enlisting in the United States Army before returning home to the law enforcement role that he loved. As an officer, he was known for his dedication and professionalism.
On the day he was taken from us, Officer Rodarte was participating in a multiagency operation targeting transnational drug trafficking organizations which has been horrific on the lives of so many Americans. He was trying to make a big difference on that, doing critical work and helping keep our communities and our streets safe from the scourge of fentanyl and other drugs.
His sacrifice reminds us of the risks law enforcement officers are always up against. Each day when they go out the door, kiss their spouse, and go out on duty, they know that risk, as does their family. The reality is still way too harsh when it happens to one of our own.
Of course, Officer Rodarte was much more than a public servant. He was a father, husband, brother, and friend. His fellow officers called him a true hero, and those who knew him best spoke of his deep dedication to his family.
In the aftermath of this loss, the people of Marysville, Rio Linda, and the entire north State have come together in mourning, offering prayers and support to his family. He leaves behind a wife and child facing this unimaginable loss. No words can fully ease the grief.
We must ensure his sacrifice is not forgotten. His service in uniform and in life is a testament to his character and his sense of duty. We honor Officer Rodarte's bravery, service, and legacy.
To his family, his fellow officers, and all who knew him, our prayers are with them. May he rest in eternal peace. God bless him, his family, his friends, and his fellow officers.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the special election that we had in Wisconsin last Tuesday for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. It was an overwhelming rebuke of the Trump-Musk agenda of cutting Medicaid, healthcare, long-term care, education funding, and food assistance to pay for a transfer of wealth of $4.5 trillion from the middle class and those aspiring to the wealthiest in this country.
It wasn't just a 10-point win that mattered. In fact, more than the win was the turnout. We rivaled a midterm congressional election turnout in a spring nonpartisan election. People are pissed, they are scared, and they are feeling unheard. So they came out to vote to be heard.
I know GOP leadership is telling its Members to ignore their constituents and not have townhalls, but I think that is backfiring. In fact, that is what we heard with that Wisconsin election.
I have had multiple townhalls, both in my district and in neighboring congressional districts in Wisconsin. We have had record turnout.
In Belmont, Wisconsin, population 1,000, we had over 200 people show up; and we had to turn people away. People were watching the townhall through the windows. In Viroqua, a town of 4,500 people, 300 to 400 people showed up to voice their displeasure with the Republican agenda. When we go home for this coming Easter break, I will do more townhalls, both in my district and in Republican districts, to make sure that people are being heard.
This is not winning for the American people. Trump's tariffs are taxes on working people. He is crashing the stock market and making costs go up. This is the opposite of what he had promised.
People don't want their services cut to fund a tax cut for the most wealthy. They don't want people who work for veteran hospitals or Social Security to have their jobs cut just to pay for Elon Musk and Donald Trump's tax cuts. They want the Federal Government's hands off the programs they value.
They are rightfully afraid that the Republicans are going after their Social Security, after Musk called it a Ponzi scheme, after Trump lied about the program over and over in the state of the Union, and after the Secretary of Commerce said people could go a month without their Social Security check unless they were fraudsters.
It is their money. Leave it alone. That is the pledge. Mr. Speaker, Republican Members of Congress can ignore their constituents, but listen to the lesson from Wisconsin at your own peril. Figure out how to listen to your constituents or get a discount card at Costco so you can buy Depends by the carton. Those are pretty much your choices.
People don't support what is going on. Represent them, not Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a true American treasure that I have the privilege to represent here in Congress. This year marks 100 years since the Grand Ole Opry first introduced audiences around the world to country music and to Nashville, Tennessee.
My home State of Tennessee is known for many things. If I had to list some of the most prominent, I might think of the Great Smoky Mountains or Elvis Presley. I would most certainly include the Grand Ole Opry.
Nashville is known around the world as Music City, USA. That would not be the case had it not been for the Opry. The longtime show isn't exclusive to Tennessee's story. No, it is part of American culture.
The Opry was around before the Great Depression and World War II. It has seen a lot, endured a lot, and served as a beacon of hope decade after decade. The program's venue has moved within Nashville a few times, but it is primarily known for two locations. They are the Ryman Auditorium off Broadway, downtown, and its current location on Opry Mills Drive. Both locations enjoy hundreds of thousands of visitors every year.
Without the Grand Ole Opry, we would likely not know names like Hank Williams, Patsy Cline, Loretta Lynn, or Willie Nelson. Heaven forbid, we might not even know Dolly Parton, had it not been for the show.
WSM, those are its call letters, was one of the first radio stations to connect urban and rural culture. The Opry was also a first to transform a hobby into a marketable and lucrative industry. Crossover artists are not uncommon today, but they were virtually
From music legends to up-and-comers, musicians from around the world rightfully revere the Grand Ole Opry as a place of prestige, history, and continued relevance.
There are fewer than 100 members of the Grand Ole Opry. It is indeed an elite crowd of men and women who made the world better, who embody country music, and who are part of our shared heritage as Americans. In fact, that membership sits at the top of dozens of obituaries among some of our Nation's finest performers.
This year, Tripadvisor ranked Nashville sixth among the best American travel destinations. More than 17 million people visited last year. That is in large part because of the influence of the Grand Ole Opry over the last 100 years.
Mr. Speaker, any seat in the house will do at the Grand Ole Opry to bear witness to the iconic barn background behind the stage. The lights that look like stars above you and the acoustics around you make for an unforgettable evening. No matter how many chances I get to see a show in person, I always sense the history, the importance, and the joy that the Grand Ole Opry represents.
As the United States Representative of Tennessee's Sixth Congressional District, I rise today to enthusiastically congratulate the Grand Ole Opry on a century of entertainment and a century of significance. I am confident that the man or woman who is in my shoes 100 years from now will feel compelled to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Upperman High School boys' basketball team on securing the first State championship in program history last month. The historic matchup was a nail-biter as the game was tied up for much of the night. Nonetheless, it ended with the Upperman Bees defeating the Tullahoma Wildcats 65-55.
This TSSAA Division 1 Class 3A BlueCross basketball championship win at Middle Tennessee State University puts their team at 32-3 on the season.
Again, I congratulate the players and their families. I also want to congratulate the coaches, including Head Coach Bobby McWilliams on the many hours they also put into this great win. Coach McWilliams says that focus was the key to their win. He says that his guys were locked in before they arrived at MTSU and it showed. Congratulations to the 2025 Tennessee State champion Upperman High School Bees.
Mr. Speaker, as someone who has dedicated years of my career to education striving to create a better future for children, I find it disturbing and ironic that my colleagues in the majority pass bills that they say are to protect students but, in fact, do nothing to address the real challenges children are facing in schools today.
The majority is willing to pass a bill to protect students from the Chinese Communist Party, something no parent or educator has ever mentioned to me, but not willing to address gun violence, increasing behavioral health needs, or, importantly, the stress and fear that the Trump administration has created by giving ICE free range to raid sensitive locations, including schools.
Don't take my word for it. Listen to the words of a fourth grade student in Oregon who wrote me this letter:
``Hi. I am a local student, and I am in fourth grade. Ever since the rules were changed to allow ICE agents to enter schools, I have felt scared for my safety and the safety of my classmates, friends, and neighbors. I feel scared and distracted in class sometimes because I am worried ICE might come in our school. I worry what might happen to me if I refuse to answer their questions to protect my friends and classmates. I also worry about ICE agents trying to talk to me on the bus ride from school. I worry about what I should do if ICE agents come up to my neighbors when I am walking with them home from the bus stop. Some of the things I worry about are: Do I hide my friends if they are getting taken? If ICE enters my school and takes someone, what will the school do? If ICE takes my classmate, what should I do? Where does ICE take people? And what do I do if my friends come home to an empty house because their family got deported?
``I wish I did not have to worry about these things, and I wish even more that my friends, classmates, and neighbors did not have to either. Thanks for your time.''
Mr. Speaker, this administration said they were going to go after dangerous criminals and drug dealers, but what they are doing instead with this disastrous mass deportation effort is creating fear and stress across the country including among young children.
``I wish I didn't have to worry about these things,'' the student said. So do I and so should anybody in this body with an ounce of compassion. These are kids. Let that sink in, and let's do what we need to do to truly protect students.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the extraordinary achievement of the 2025 Glenvar High School boys' swim team, the VHSL Class 1 and 2 combined State champions. The Glenvar Highlanders traveled to Richmond on February 27 and captured their second consecutive State title, an incredible accomplishment that reflects their hard work, talent, and dedication.
With a squad of just 11 boys, Glenvar scored an impressive 280 points, outpacing second-place Radford High by 75 points. Of the 11 swimming events contested, the Highlanders won 5 and were runners-up in 2 others.
Congratulations to team members: seniors Avery McClanahan, Alec McIlwain, Kees VanGerven, Connor Wilkes, and Zach Adams; juniors Landon Cairns, Darren Delby, Grayson Shearer, and Avery Thompson; sophomore Cooper Ermel; and freshman Aspen Thompson.
Special recognition goes to individual champions Connor Wilkes, Landon Cairns, and Aspen Thompson, as well as the championship relay teams. Connor Wilkes closes his Glenvar career as one of the most decorated swimmers in school history and will continue his athletic and academic journey at Carson-Newman University.
The Glenvar Highlanders have made their school and community proud. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating these outstanding young athletes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life and legacy of Justice Lawrence Larkins Koontz, Jr., of Salem, Virginia, who passed away at the age of 85.
Justice Koontz was one of the most consequential judges in the Commonwealth's history. Over a judicial career spanning 42 years, he served at every level of Virginia's court system, culminating in his roles as the founding chief judge of the Virginia Court of Appeals and as a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia.
A Roanoke native and graduate of Virginia Tech and the University of Richmond School of Law--go Spiders--Justice Koontz was known for his clarity of writing, profound sense of fairness, and deep commitment to justice. Justice Koontz mentored generations of legal professionals and leaves a legacy of wisdom, service, and an unwavering dedication to the rule of law.
We extend our deepest condolences to his beloved wife, Elizabeth, his children, grandchildren, and all who were touched by his wisdom and kindness. May his memory be a blessing, and may we all strive to live with the same dedication to service that Justice Koontz so fully embodied.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I joined Senator Mike Lee of Utah in introducing the No Union Time on the
For years, Federal employees have spent millions of taxpayer dollars on union-related work instead of performing their official responsibilities. Federal employees spent 3.6 million hours performing union-related activities in 2016 alone, costing taxpayers $177.2 million.
Even after reforms under the Trump administration brought that number down to 2.6 million hours and $135 million in 2019, the lack of unified reporting means the full scope of the problem remains unknown today. This is money that should have gone to serve the American people, not to subsidize private union interests.
Ending ``official time'' is a commonsense step to ensure taxpayer dollars are used responsibly and to increase accountability across the Federal workforce. Public funds should serve the American people, not private union interests.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a true American hero, World War II veteran Edgar Carl Wilke, as he celebrates his 100th birthday. A native Buffalonian and longtime resident of West Seneca, New York, Mr. Wilke served our Nation with courage and distinction during World War II.
Enlisting from his hometown, he joined the 24th Infantry Division of the 24th Regiment, achieving the rank of Private First Class. During his service in the Pacific theater, Mr. Wilke displayed extraordinary bravery, earning the Bronze Star Medal for his heroic actions.
While fighting in the Philippines, he was gravely wounded by an enemy grenade so severely that those awarding him the Purple Heart believed he would not survive. After enduring months in the hospital, he returned home where Mr. Wilke built a life of love and dedication alongside his beloved wife, Joan, until her passing in 2014.
Through it all, Mr. Wilke has remained a man of deep faith, trusting in God and embracing the simple joys of life.
In addition to the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, Mr. Wilke has been honored with numerous commendations, including the American Campaign Medal, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal with two bronze service stars, the World War II Victory Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, and the Marksman Badge with Rifle Bar.
As Mr. Wilke celebrates this incredible milestone surrounded by five generations of family, we are reminded that the freedoms we cherish were secured by the courage and sacrifice of patriots like him.
His life is a testament to resilience, service, and an unwavering love for the country and community he calls home.
Western New York and the United States of America are better because of him, and it is an honor to celebrate his incredible story.
On behalf of the people of western New York and a grateful nation, we wish Mr. Wilke a very happy 100th birthday and many more years to come. I thank Mr. Wilke for his service, and may his century of life continue to be an inspiration to us all.
Congratulating the University at Buffalo Women's Basketball Team
Mr. Speaker, today I have the distinct honor of congratulating the University at Buffalo women's basketball team on their incredible victory in the women's NIT championship this past weekend.
On April 5, before a packed and energized Alumni Arena, the UB Bulls women's basketball team triumphed over Troy 88-84 accomplishing something few teams get to do: end their season with a championship win.
This moment marked the deepest postseason run in the history of UB basketball, men's or women's. However, this is more than just a win; this is a legacy in the making.
UB guard Lani Cornfield, a proud member of the Seneca Nation Indians and alum of Lake Shore High School, said it best: This just put Buffalo back on the map.
I extend a heartfelt congratulations to each of the players on this remarkable team:
I also recognize the coaching staff that has helped shape this program into a powerhouse and who continue the proud tradition of UB women's basketball: Head Coach Becky Burke, Associate Head Coach Jacey Brooks, Assistant Coach James Ewing, Assistant Coach Erin Sinnott, Director of Basketball Operations Allese Williams, and Vice President and Director of Athletics Mark Alnutt.
As UB guard Chellia Watson, who scored 23 points in the final game, put it: The key to victory was defense and grit, just not giving up, and showing we have got all the fight in the world.
Now, that is the Buffalo way.
This team's journey reminds us all what is possible when talent, opportunity, and unwavering determination come together. These young women are not just champions; they are role models inspiring the next generation of female athletes and showing young people in our community what can be achieved through dedication, resilience, and teamwork.
On behalf of western New York and our great Nation, I offer our heartfelt congratulations. We are proud, we are inspired, and we can't wait to see this incredible team in action next year defending their title.
Mr. Speaker, this morning, I rise with a heavy heart over the loss of one of Florida's finest.
On Wednesday, April 2, Walton County Sheriff's Deputy William May responded to a local disturbance where he was fired upon by an armed suspect. As Deputy May returned fire, he was wounded by the assailant and subsequently died.
Due to his bravery, Deputy May was able to end the potential threat to the community before succumbing to his injuries.
Deputy May served the Walton County Sheriff's Office for more than a decade, beginning his career as a communications officer in 2014 before taking the oath of office in 2019 as a deputy sheriff. During his time in law enforcement, Deputy May earned lifesaving awards and multiple letters of commendation.
Today, the Walton County Sheriff's Office mourns the loss of a fellow deputy. The State of Florida mourns the loss of this hero. A wife mourns the loss of her husband, and four beautiful children mourn the loss of their father.
Unfortunately, Deputy May's story is one of many first responders around our country sacrificing their personal lives working 24/7/365, missing birthdays, anniversaries, and other special occasions in order to keep our American neighborhoods safe.
It is an honor to represent parts of Walton County and share that responsibility with Congressman Neal Dunn, who joins me in this prayer for the members of our local law enforcement.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to honor Walton County Deputy William May for the ultimate sacrifice he made for our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Jessie Echaury for his military service and contributions to our community.
In 2016, Jessie served our Nation as a U.S. Army soldier in Afghanistan. A decade later, he now serves other veterans as president of Cal State Fullerton's Student Veterans of America chapter.
In this role, he advocates for veteran students struggling with invisible wounds like PTSD.
I thank Jessie for his service to our Nation and for his commitment to fellow students who are veterans.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Charlie Zhang for his philanthropy and his induction into the Orange County Hall of Fame.
Charlie comes from humble beginnings. He came to this country penniless and unable to speak English but with a dream. With hard work, he started a number of businesses, and he achieved the American Dream.
Now, Charlie is known throughout Orange County for supporting education and the arts. Some of his most important contributions have helped business and economics students at my own alma mater, Cal State Fullerton.
I thank Charlie for being a role model and helping to uplift Orange County's next generation. I congratulate him on a well-deserved induction into Orange County's Hall of Fame.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate sisters Alicia, Anabelle, and Angelica Serratos for their accomplishments as part of the Santa Ana High School girls' wrestling team.
Alicia, Anabelle, and Angelica took home an impressive combined record of 104 wins and 12 losses into their recent CIF Southern Section girls' championship meets.
Their parents, Fernando and Monica, are both former wrestlers and currently coach at Santa Ana High School. Their guidance has helped their daughters, the sisters, and many other champs at Santa Ana High School.
I wish Alicia, Anabelle, and Angelica success in their wrestling careers, and I thank the Serratos family for showing Orange County how it is done.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Senior Santa & Friends program that supports many seniors across Orange County.
Each year, this program brings joy to seniors and adults with severe disabilities, bringing them gifts and special requests, gifts that make changes in their lives like household appliances, medical equipment, clothing, and nutritional supplements.
Senior Santa & Friends has been able to deliver 2,100 gifts annually to seniors in need in our community.
Please join me in thanking Senior Santa & Friends for their dedication to helping our community make life much better during the holidays for our seniors.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mechatronics Team 3133, the Alexandria Area High School's robotics team, on winning the Impact Award.
This prestigious award will send the team to the world championship in Houston, Texas. This is their third Impact Award, and it is clear why. The team is extremely dedicated, having offered hours of their time in the summer to work with elementary and middle school robotics teams.
Teammates Bridger Klavetter and Gunner Sellnow said they appreciate the worldwide community that the sport has allowed them to be part of and said that their team works to be professional in defeat and gracious in victory.
On behalf of the Seventh District, I wish them the best of luck in Houston.
Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber, as early as today, we may be passing legislation that is explicitly designed to maintain historically low tax rates on the Nation's wealthiest people.
The richest people in America will be served by this institution so that they can pay the lowest tax amounts possible. The corporations in this country must have their record-low tax rates maintained.
The problem is this comes with a cost, and that cost will be paid, as the Republicans have laid it out for us to see, by the Medicaid program and by the addition of trillions of dollars to the United States debt.
Let's talk for a second about Medicaid because it serves about 80 million Americans. Not all Americans have experience with it, but an awful lot do. We are told, and the fantasy is, that the money can be saved by identifying waste, fraud, and abuse.
Make no mistake, that is a fantasy. If you are rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse, you hire more people, investigators, and auditors to go after it. We are doing the exact opposite. Elon Musk and DOGE are firing the people who go after waste, fraud, and abuse.
It turns out that people don't wear signs around their necks saying: ``I am committing waste, fraud, and abuse.'' No, it is hard to identify this stuff. It exists, but it does not exist in any conceivable number that the Republicans are talking about cutting out of the Medicaid program.
That number is almost $100 billion a year, $100 billion out of roughly $600 billion in spending. Mind you, that is not trimming. That is taking a wheel off the car.
Here is what is going to happen. As I said, Medicaid covers 80 million Americans with health insurance. It also provides the funding that allows grandma to stay in an assisted living facility after she has run out of assets.
What I really want to do is tell you about Conner Curran. Conner is a 14-year-old from the town of Ridgefield, which I have the honor of representing. His mom is a teacher. His dad works for a local municipality. These are wonderful, middle-class folks just like anyone else in this country.
The problem is that 10 years ago, when he was 4 years old, Conner was diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a terrible disease. Your muscles waste away, including your heart and your lung muscles. As a consequence, people who have this terrible diagnosis tend to live between 20 and 30 years. Conner is 14.
Lately, because of breakthrough research, some people diagnosed with Duchenne muscular dystrophy are living into their forties and fifties.
You might imagine what the Curran family felt when those research programs were devastated by Elon Musk and DOGE. Imagine that.
The real threat to Conner is what is going to happen in this Chamber this week as they find a way to slash Medicaid.
Conner's medicines, the medicines that have kept him alive, cost thousands of dollars a month. A middle-class family can't pay that. Medicaid does.
His lung function is compromised, so he needs a $12,000 machine to breathe. He needs help in school. He wants to go to college, but he needs a little help because he is severely handicapped by this terrible disease.
Conner comes to my office almost every year to tell me about his aspirations and to beg that we keep funding not just the research that may provide him with a normal lifespan but those things that give him a reasonable quality of life, a shot of achieving that dream of going to college.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are not voting on numbers this week, although there are billions involved. My colleagues are certainly not voting on waste, fraud, or abuse. Let's leave that fantasy behind. My colleagues are voting this week on what kind of future, if any, Conner can expect and what kind of future, if any, 80 million Americans who rely on Medicaid will have.
My colleagues must take seriously the pain that is about to be caused to some of the most vulnerable Americans out there as they think about their vote, as they think about what they are trying to achieve, as they think about what they aspire this country to be.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today for the more than 120,000 people in my district who count on Social Security, a sacred promise earned through decades of hard work.
Social Security is the bedrock of retirement for the middle class. It means dignity after a lifetime of work.
Donald Trump and Elon Musk are firing the staff that run the Social Security office, all to find more money to pay for tax cuts for billionaires, and the impact has been devastating.
Last month alone, the Social Security website crashed four times in 10 days for hours, in one case for almost an entire day, locking retirees out of their accounts.
People who try to call the Social Security offices are on hold for hours because all the staff in the offices have been fired.
Now, they are threatening to shut down the phone lines altogether and close offices all across the country.
These aren't glitches. These are deliberate choices for no good reason. This is a violation of the sacred promise of Social Security, and I am urging this body and Members on both sides of the aisle to listen to your constituents and stand up for the working people of your districts who have paid into Social Security. This is their benefit that they have earned.
Tell Elon Musk to get his hands off of the Social Security Administration.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a century of service from the Rhode Island State Police.
For 100 years, the men and women of the Rhode Island State Police have answered the call through hurricanes and blizzards, working on the highways, in cyberspace, and undercover, always committed to keeping Rhode Islanders safe.
Established in 1925, the Rhode Island State Police was a new type of police force. They were tasked with reaching and serving the areas that were often underserved by the local police.
In the 1930s, the Rhode Island State Police established their headquarters in North Scituate, where they remain to this day.
During their 100 years, they have been known for excellence in disrupting organized crime, responding to emergencies, solving complex financial and cybercrimes, and keeping the roads safe and traffic moving. They also have a history of lending a hand to other States in their times of need, including in Massachusetts after the Boston Marathon bombing.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Rhode Island State Police for a century of service. They have our gratitude and our support.
Mr. Speaker, every day in this country, millions of people wake up and serve as caregivers for a parent, spouse, or a sibling who is aging, sick, or disabled.
Let's be clear that this is work. It may not come with a title or a W-2. Yet, for those family members who need a little extra help, it means the world. In spite of the important role that family caregivers play, they too often go overlooked.
That is why I am working with a bipartisan group of colleagues to introduce legislation to make the lives and work of caregivers a little easier. Together, we are introducing bills to expand access to tax-free savings accounts to cover the costs of medical expenses, to improve communication between Medicare and caregivers to streamline the benefits process, and to create a new $5,000 tax credit to help offset the costs of family caregiving.
Just a few weeks ago, I joined a bipartisan, bicameral group of colleagues to introduce the Alleviating Barriers for Caregivers Act to eliminate red tape for caregivers. Caregiving back home in my district and across the country deserves support and deserves respect, and I am calling on my colleagues to join me in helping those who give so much.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today, first and foremost, to talk about the incredible achievement of Geno Auriemma and the University of Connecticut's women's basketball team, the winningest program in the Nation's history.
They performed remarkably well throughout the tournament, and it is just a great honor and a tribute for the entire Connecticut delegation to recognize this outstanding achievement.
Typical of Geno Auriemma, what he did before he accepted the award or said anything, he congratulated South Carolina and their coach and their achievements and the incredible season that they had, as well.
It is nice in athletics and sports to still see the class rings and the recognition of contributions of student athletes. Watching the NCAA tournament and watching both men's and women's collegiate athletes compete, it reminds us of just how great of a nation we live in.
In this great Nation, I am equally proud to recognize the number one program of all time is that of the University of Connecticut, led by Coach Geno Auriemma.
Mr. Speaker, I also rise to discuss Social Security today, the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and the number one antipoverty program for children, as well.
Mr. Speaker, it is dismaying to see the President's proposal and Elon Musk's proposal to cut Social Security. Let's be clear about it. That is exactly what this administration is doing when they are taking SSA and diminishing its field forces and closing regional offices.
In the Speaker's district, there are over 160,000 recipients who receive Social Security benefits. What most Members don't realize is that also means $291 million that comes into the Speaker's district every month.
Mr. Speaker, that hasn't been changed since 1971. Have a few things changed since 1971? It is long overdue that Congress not only protects Social Security, the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and children but expands it because it hasn't been expanded since 1971. That is shameful and long overdue.
Instead, Elon Musk is going about and talking about how he is going to cut programs and singling out Social Security, Medicare, and national defense. Yet, the only thing he is really talking about is Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, that is because, of those three programs, Social Security is the only one that has $2.7 trillion in its trust fund. That is the people's money. That is what every single American has put into that program.
Mr. Speaker, it is not an entitlement. It is an earned benefit. The actions of Elon Musk and the President and, until this body speaks out and up, the actions of the Republican-controlled House and Senate is to go along with what Elon Musk and President Trump are providing.
That means a direct cut to the Speaker's district and all of the other 434 districts and all of the individuals who rely on Social Security. It is a shame that, in the wealthiest Nation in the world, over 5 million of our fellow Americans who paid into the insurance program get below-poverty-level checks from the wealthiest government and the wealthiest Nation in the world simply because Congress hasn't acted.
It is equally shameful that not since 1971 have any of these programs been enhanced. Even last December, when teachers and firefighters and police officers were finally included, it was not paid for. Step up, pay for, and fund Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of United States Air Corps sergeant and World War II veteran, Edward James McGraw.
A tail gunner, Purple Heart and Bronze Star recipient, prisoner of war survivor, beloved member of the Greatest Generation, and Green Valley resident, Edward McGraw represented the highest ideals of service, sacrifice, and resilience.
Shot down over France in 1944, Edward's bravery saved countless lives, even as he endured frostbite, captivity, and some of the hardest conditions of the war. While he faced unimaginable
After the war, he built a joyful life, carrying with him a quiet strength from his time in service.
Edward's lifetime of service and his courage, grace, and patriotism will continue to live on in the hearts of all who knew him.
We will never forget the sacrifices that he and countless soldiers made for our freedoms. I thank Edward for his service, and may he rest in peace.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and highlight Clayton Ratliff and Carlo Rivero, two young athletes from Arizona who were selected to play on the 12U USA Baseball team. This is a monumental achievement that reflects their dedication and perseverance to the sport.
Tryouts start with 25,000 hopeful participants with three rounds of eliminations, ultimately creating a final roster of only 18 players.
Clayton is a proud resident of Casa Grande and an aspiring baseball player who is well respected by everyone in his community. He is a pitcher and outfielder.
Carlo lives in Tucson and comes from a proud baseball family. His dad played college baseball, and his grandfather played professionally in the MLB. He plays as a pitcher and an infielder.
I am grateful for the opportunity to honor these two young athletes for their accomplishments at such a young age. I know we all look forward to rooting for them and seeing all the amazing things that they will accomplish in their baseball and academic careers.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Andrada Polytechnic High School for receiving an A-plus School of Excellence Award by the Arizona Educational Foundation, the highest State-level recognition given to a public school.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XV, I rise to provide notice my intent to offer a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the further consideration of House Resolution 164.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Did the gentlewoman sign the petition?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XV, a motion to discharge is privileged only at a time designated by the Speaker within 2 legislative days after the intent to offer such motion is offered. The Chair will entertain the gentlewoman's motion at that time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a fellow veteran and champion for students in the Goochland and Richmond community, the president of the Benedictine Schools of Richmond, Jesse Grapes.
Mr. Grapes embodies the spirit of service.
The day after the September 11 attacks, Mr. Grapes joined the Marine Corps as an infantry platoon commander. He deployed for three combat tours in Iraq and earned the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart.
He continued his life of service after he returned home. In 2010, he became headmaster of Benedictine College Preparatory, and in 2020 he was announced as president of Benedictine Schools of Richmond.
The Benedictine Schools of Richmond offer a good, Christian-based education that prepares their students for life.
Mr. Speaker, as a fellow veteran and Navy SEAL, I know you can never have enough marines around. I thank Mr. Grapes for his service to our country and our community.
Mr. Speaker, on March 24, the Trump administration abruptly terminated the highly successful Patrick Leahy Farm to School grant program which helps schools incorporate healthy, locally grown foods into their school meal programs.
USDA's own findings report that 61 percent of schools using the program saw increased fruit and vegetable consumption among students.
The bottom line is this program is good for kids, good for families, and good for farmers. That is why last week I led a letter to Agriculture Secretary Rollins, along with Congresswomen Suzanne Bonamici, Stacey Plaskett, Chellie Pingree, and 34 other Democrats, demanding answers on why the administration suddenly canceled this congressionally authorized and funded program with no notice to Congress.
Mr. Speaker, despite promising to support farmers and promote health, this is just another of many recent examples of the Trump administration callously undercutting our farmers, schools, and the well-being of our communities.
We should be expanding wonderful programs like Patrick Leahy Farm to School grants, not gutting them, to end hunger now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the National Emergencies Act and the Emergency Economic Powers Act, I move to discharge the Committee on Foreign Affairs from further consideration of H.J. Res. 72, relating to a national emergency by the President on February 1, 2025.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion is not in order.
H.J. Res. 72 relates to the emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025.
Pursuant to section 4 of House Resolution 211, each day of the first session of the 119th Congress after March 11 does not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act for purposes of that emergency. Therefore, no motion to discharge with respect to the emergency declared on February 1, 2025, is in order because the requisite 15 calendar days have not elapsed.
Mr. Speaker, under the Biden-Harris administration, America experienced wasteful spending harming families and destroying jobs.
This week House Republicans will consider the Senate version of the budget and set forth budgetary levels for 2026. Originally introduced by House Budget Chairman Jodey Arrington, this is essential for a single bill to enact the agenda of President Donald Trump.
The budget resolution provides for Congress to secure the border, unleash American energy, prevent the largest tax hike in history, create jobs, and bring common sense back to government.
Wasteful spending will be eliminated, putting the American people first.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Open borders for dictators put all Americans at risk of more 9/11 attacks imminent, as warned by the FBI. Trump is reinstituting existing laws to protect American families with peace through strength.
Our sympathy to the family and Phi Gamma Delta fraternity brothers of beloved USC student, Nathaniel ``Nate'' Baker, of Glen Allen, Virginia.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 1-year anniversary of the passing of Colonel Ralph Puckett, Jr.
Colonel Puckett was the last living Medal of Honor recipient from the Korean war, and he was from my hometown of Tifton, Georgia.
Colonel Puckett was a warrior's warrior and one of the finest men I have ever met. He served as an Army Ranger in the Korean war where he, alongside his soldiers, fought off five assaults by enemy forces even while outnumbered by 10-1. His heroic actions earned him the Medal of Honor.
During his career, he received two Silver Stars, two Bronze Stars, five Purple Hearts, and the two highest awards for military valor: the Distinguished Service Cross and the Congressional Medal of Honor.
On April 29, 2024, Colonel Puckett laid in honor here in our Nation's Capitol Building.
Mr. Speaker, Colonel Puckett was a blessing to our country. It was an honor to know him. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the minute I had to honor Colonel Ralph Puckett.
Mr. Speaker, every American who puts on the uniform deserves to be remembered with dignity and respect.
I was proud to introduce the bipartisan Fallen Servicemembers Religious Heritage Restoration Act to help ensure that hundreds of fallen American-Jewish servicemembers are buried under military grave markers that represent their true religion and heritage.
An estimated 600 American-Jewish servicemembers remain improperly buried under the Latin Cross, not the Star of David. Many brave servicemembers made the ultimate sacrifice while defending freedom in World War I and World War II, but due to clerical errors or concerns for their safety during service, their religious identities were not properly recorded.
This bill is a meaningful step to correct those errors and to ensure that these heroes are laid to rest with the honor and dignity that they deserve.
Providing for Consideration of S.J. RES. 18, Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions...
Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 294, providing for consideration of four measures: S.J. Res. 18, disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''; S.J. Res. 28, disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications''; H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025; and H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.
House Resolution 294 provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28, both under closed rules, with 1 hour of general debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and rank minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees and provides each one motion to commit.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
Finally, the rule provides that H. Res. 293 is hereby adopted and provides that House Resolution 164 is laid on the table.
The rule before us today provides Congress with yet another opportunity to stand for consumer choice and business innovation in our Nation. It provides an opportunity to defend the integrity of our elections, and it provides for a historic opportunity to rein in rogue judges and return public policy decisions to their rightful branches of government.
H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office.
The only people who should vote in American elections are American citizens. There should be no debate or question about that. The SAVE Act adds additional layers of protection to elections right here in our own country. It is an opportunity worthy of bipartisan support.
H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, would limit the authority of district judges to provide sweeping injunctive relief on a nationwide or exceedingly broad scale.
As of late, we have certainly seen a slew of rulings by rogue judges that surpass their own constitutional authority. Americans are rightfully concerned about this very issue.
Let me be clear. This is judicial warfare in the flesh. Without question, exceeding constitutional mandates as a matter of judicial philosophy does nothing more than blight justice itself.
S.J. Res. 18, a Congressional Review Act resolution, would overturn a midnight rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, that undercuts the ability of lower-income Americans to access liquidity.
To put it very simply, this CFPB's rule hurts the very consumers that it purports to protect.
One of the likely outcomes of this rule being fully implemented would be low-income Americans being expelled from the financial system entirely due to lack of overdraft protection. It is time that we add this midnight rule to the burn pile.
S.J. Res. 28, another Congressional Review Act resolution, would overturn another CFPB rule that unjustly shackles private-sector companies that operate within the digital asset marketplace.
This rule is billed as a ``consumer protection'' mechanism, but what it really does is misclassifies an entire segment of digital products with the aim of regulating them straight into the ground. The CFPB overstepped its regulatory authority in its pursuit of subjugating the American economy in the name of consumer protection. This is another misguided rule that we must render null and void.
Mr. Speaker, before I reserve, I want to take a moment to recognize the good faith efforts of Speaker Johnson in helping maintain a strong family-centric posture here in the people's House.
Leading from the front and building consensus are not always easy endeavors. All of us understand this to be true. However, when done in the right ways and for the right reasons, like what the Speaker has done, we get positive resolutions.
It is obvious that we have a critical mass of Members on what I consider an existential question for this body and that the related discharge effort derailed our agenda for a short time. However, we are back at our post, and our objective right here and now is to move forward.
At the end of the day, our eyes must remain affixed to our very own North Star. Our North Star is governance, Mr. Speaker. Deviating from governing does not serve the American people, nor does it make good on the mandate they entrusted us with.
The compromise agreement of dead pairing that was formulated and led by the Speaker and others is grounded in existing precedents, practices, and, ultimately, common sense.
This is a viable pathway forward that meets two critical imperatives. It allows the clockwork and business of this body to remain unabated while extending due deference to our own majority's own governing principles.
It is not the prerogative of this Republican majority now, nor will it ever be, to use tools of the minority to secure legislative victories. Republicans are the ones manning the helm here, and we must act like it.
In addition, I will add that I firmly believe, as do many others, that Speaker Johnson's work in addressing the concerns raised last week and taking sizable steps to further intertwine rock-solid family values into the fabric of this House are very commendable.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have to ask, Mr. Speaker: What the hell is the Republican majority doing?
I mean, last week, these guys canceled Congress and went home all because they don't want new moms or dads to be able to vote. So much for being the party of family values.
The gentlewoman just said that the Speaker is very much in support of family values, yet he has a problem with allowing new moms and dads to be able to vote by proxy. He seems to have no problem with Republican Members flying to the West Coast, filming comedy shows in Hollywood, and voting by proxy.
I mean, I don't get it. That is what family values mean to my Republican friends?
It took the Speaker a week--it took the Speaker a whole week--to buy off a few votes by offering a pretend deal. Now, Republicans are ready to move forward on the important legislative business of--wait for it-- passing the same bills they rejected last week, not that these bills are any better the second time around.
These bills include a bill that will make it harder for women to vote, a bill to let the Trump administration break the law, and two resolutions that stick it to consumers.
Honest to God, Mr. Speaker, who asked for these? Which Trump donor wrote these measures?
Meanwhile, what aren't we talking about on the floor right now? We aren't talking about the tariffs, not a peep about the tariffs, not a peep about the chaos in the markets, not a peep about the uncertainty this is causing, not a peep about how this is going to screw over middle America.
Never in my life have I seen anything like this.
The President promised lower prices and a booming economy, and we are going to get higher prices and a recession. This is nuts.
Trump isn't using tariffs strategically. He is launching an economic nuclear war, and we are all in the blast zone. This is a disaster.
Even if you agree with these tariffs, which is nuts, put that aside. Even if you are a fan, can just one Republican admit that it is insane that one guy is making this call alone?
Our Founders fought a revolution to stop one person from having this much power, and so-called conservatives are rewriting the rules to dodge a vote in Congress. This is crazy.
They are totally fine giving Trump unlimited power to do whatever the hell he wants, and they won't even let us vote. They won't even let us vote.
A few minutes ago, I sought recognition for a motion allowed under the law to bring a joint resolution to the floor to end just one of Trump's tariffs, and that request was denied because Republicans have rigged the rules. Let me repeat that. Republicans have rigged the rules, and I will talk more about that during this debate.
This is all because Republicans know what is coming, and they are scared. They know people are going to lose
They don't want to have to go home and explain it. They don't want to have to put their names on that. They are rigging the rules so we don't have a vote.
Guess what. They can run from accountability, but they can't hide from the consequences.
You guys own this. You own the tariffs. You own the fallout.
There is no plan here, no strategy, just economic self-sabotage. Regular Americans are going to pay the price for these tariffs. This is a disaster for our country, and you guys are too chicken to even vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on whether you support the tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding.
My friend was talking about rigging the rules. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are all too happy to have district judges rig the rules to stop the President of the United States from being able to defend our country.
Just last week, within close proximity to my house in Dripping Springs, Texas, 47 individuals who are affiliated with the gang Tren de Aragua were found by ICE. Right down the road in suburban Austin, Texas, 47 people, including 9 children, were found in what was a stash house, moving narcotics through it.
This is the same gang that killed Jocelyn Nungaray last summer. This is the same gang that was torturing and driving fear into the hearts of the people in Aurora, Colorado, in the apartment complexes that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge. These are all the same people who are being allowed to vote, the same people that we were elected in November to remove from the country.
The President of the United States as Commander in Chief in defending the United States and as the Chief Executive is carrying out the laws to remove dangerous individuals from the United States of America. Then, an activist district judge in the District of Columbia decided that, in his view, he had to step in. He had to step in to try to assert his jurisdiction where it did not belong to try to stop the President of the United States from removing dangerous gang members who are killing Americans.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the United States Supreme Court said: Stop. You don't get to do that, Mr. District Judge in D.C. If you are going to do this, you have to do this in Texas.
Mr. Speaker, that was the whole point.
Just today, we had another ruling out of the Supreme Court slapping down yet another activist judge.
What are we doing, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) asks. What are we doing as Republicans? We are putting forward language today that would stop rogue district judges from carrying out nationwide injunctions and temporary restraining orders and who are trying to effectively legislate from the bench.
Mr. Speaker, we are not alone in that position. The Biden administration's solicitor general in 2024 told the Supreme Court: ``A court of equity may grant relief only to the parties before it.''
In 2022, that same solicitor general asked the Supreme Court to address nationwide injunctions.
In 2022, Justice Elena Kagan spoke out against the ability of a single judge to stop implementation of a policy across the country.
Lo and behold, we are advancing bipartisan work to address a bipartisan problem that Democrats have very clearly identified. The only difference now is that Donald Trump is in the White House instead of Joe Biden.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for yielding additional time.
Mr. Speaker, again, Republicans have brought forward a rule containing a bill that addresses a problem that Democrats have identified as a problem, to say that the parties before the court are the only ones to whom it should apply and allows for a mechanism to achieve nationwide injunctions through a three-judge panel.
Mr. Speaker, we are also bringing to the floor a bill that will say that only American citizens should vote in American elections. The controversy--oh, my gosh--the bloodletting, that we might say in the United States House of Representatives that only American citizens should be able to vote in American elections. Yet, that is what we are doing.
Republicans are responding to an American people who are tired of the previous administration that was allowing illegals to come into our country, kill our citizens, vote in our elections, and undermine our country. We are addressing their concerns, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to address it.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the rule, and I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) will be happy to learn that it already is the law that only American citizens can vote in Federal elections. I am happy to send him the law so that he can understand that.
Our problem with the SAVE Act is that it is an attempt to make it more difficult for women who are U.S. citizens to be able to vote.
Talking about rigging the rules, again, there are four closed rules in this rule. For those who are tuning in, that means that we can't offer any amendments, we can't change anything, and we just have to take it or leave it. That is called rigging the rules so that Democrats and Republicans can't participate in the process.
Then there is a fifth measure in here. The gentleman who was just screaming on the floor helped lead the effort to get the Speaker of the House basically to go against the will of the majority in this House who wanted very much to have an up or down vote on whether or not we could allow new parents to be able to vote by proxy, so that they could actually stay home with their new baby for a brief period of time and be able to represent their constituents at the same time.
What is in this rule is a fake compromise, they call it. It is a nothing burger. It doesn't change anything. It doesn't help anybody. Basically, we can't debate or vote up or down on that. It is deemed passed. Magically, it is deemed passed in this rule if this rule gets a majority vote.
Mr. Speaker, not to mention what I was saying at the very beginning that Republicans have basically shut off any attempts to bring legislation to the floor to deal with President Trump's tariffs, which, by the way, are going to result in enormous cost increases for consumers.
Mr. Speaker, this whole House is being mismanaged. This whole House is being run in a way that, quite frankly, would impress Vladimir Putin. Yet, then again, maybe that is who they want to impress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen), who led the effort, along with Ms. Jacobs of California, to grant new parents the ability to be able to be good parents, to be able to be with their newborns and still be able to represent their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule that will kill our bipartisan effort to allow parents who have welcomed a new child to vote remotely.
I thank Representative Luna for her unwavering commitment to giving moms and dads a voice in Congress. A large majority of the Members of the House support changing the way we do things here and making it more accessible to young families and more reflective of the American people.
Speaker Johnson pulled out all of the stops to prevent us from moving forward. We followed the rules and filed a discharge petition. We got the 218 signatures necessary to bring it to a vote
Even the President supports this and doesn't understand why it is so controversial, and neither does the rest of America.
Let's be clear that the changes agreed upon by the Speaker are not a win for us. They do not address the challenges that we have worked so hard to overcome. The Speaker turned his back on moms and dads in Congress and working families across the country.
Congress is stuck doing things the way that we did hundreds of years ago, and it is time that we move it into the 21st century.
For all of the people who have said that I should resign because I can't do my job, they are completely missing the point. I am absolutely capable of doing my job, but because I am a woman and because I chose to have a baby, I have been prevented from doing so.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the people who have come forward on both sides of the aisle in support of this effort, and I know that our fight is far from over. We are not going to back down. We stand with the people from across the country who have reached out, inspired to see somebody like them who is struggling to manage having a new baby, balancing work, and having a work environment that does not support their needs.
Once again, I thank Representative Luna for being a champion, as well as Representatives Jacobs and Lawler for all of their work on this. We won't stop until we finally get this done.
Before I am done, I acknowledge Sam, who has now made four flights across the country to change hearts and minds and also highlight the need for reform here in Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the solution we are going to vote on today to allow mothers and fathers to continue to represent their constituents and to be able to cast their votes is a great solution. It is one that existed in this Congress before. It is a tried and true method. It broadens the ability of people to vote when they cannot be here to vote. We have had situations where we have had people rolled in on gurneys to be able to vote.
Mr. Speaker, this is a much fairer way to do this in the way that we are doing it now.
I also remind my colleagues who are speaking against or saying we are not dealing with the tariffs issue is that former Speaker Pelosi, Senator Schumer, and other Democrats railed against Chinese tariffs years ago but did nothing about them. They even supported President Biden's preserving of the tariffs from the Chinese most recently, and they said nothing about it here.
President Trump is doing something about the tariffs. He is responding in ways that will strengthen the international economic position of the United States and protect American workers. He is showing leadership where the Democrats have shown none.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me correct the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). We are not voting on any kind of compromise here. It is being deemed. Republicans have it tucked into the rule so that we don't have a separate vote on it. We are not going to have a separate debate on it. Yet, that is one of the tactics used so that we can't actually talk about it on the House floor.
Secondly, paired voting, if it was such a good idea, why did we get rid of it 25 years ago? Basically, it is a glorified way to highlight to people that Members are absent and not here voting. Ms. Pettersen's vote won't count if she is not here.
It is just a stupid, ridiculous way to try to deal with the issue at hand, which is that new moms and dads actually should be able to be good moms and dads, stay with their kids at home, and be able to still represent their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen) for any additional comments.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague, Representative Luna, has done everything she can to try to find a path forward, and this is ultimately the only option that existed at the end.
Yet, this does not address the real barriers that people continue to face. This would be the last week that I could have been home, still working in my district, working as a Member of Congress and representing my constituents but making sure that I was not traveling across the country with my son.
Do my colleagues think that there would be one Republican here today who would stand on my behalf and vote ``present'' on the bills coming forward this week?
I don't think so. This is why this is not a workable solution. This is not going to address when people are unable to be here for medical reasons and for the well-being of their kid after giving birth. While I appreciate trying to find whatever common ground we can, this is not a deal. This does not solve our problem, and the work continues.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to be ashamed of. We are here solving problems for the American people every day. We are responding to what we were asked to do in the last election.
I just point out to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that Republicans had a majority in the 118th Congress, the most recent Congress. We are now in the 119th Congress.
We deemed only two items that were passed in the Committee on Rules. In the 117th Congress, when the Democrats controlled the Congress, they deemed 38 different items as passed in the Committee on Rules.
There is an old saying, Mr. Speaker: ``Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, I laid out how Donald Trump's tariffs are causing chaos and hurting families. I will explain why we are unable to force a vote to block them here in the House, even though the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the National Emergencies Act provide a process to terminate national emergencies through a privileged joint resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the House Rules and Manual says here: ``A privileged motion to discharge a committee from further consideration of a joint resolution terminating an emergency is available after the measure has been referred to committee for 15 calendar days.''
A Member of this House, Ranking Member Meeks, introduced H.J. Res. 72, terminating the national emergency imposing tariffs on Canada, 34 days ago.
Earlier, I offered a motion to discharge his joint resolution from committee and bring it to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, why wasn't it allowed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman asking me?
Mr. Speaker, what I am just trying to figure out is whether it is in order in the House to move to discharge H.J. Res. 72 or H.J. Res. 73 from committee so that they can be considered on the floor.
I guess we are not going to get an answer.
Mr. Speaker, it wasn't allowed because Republicans changed how time itself works in the House to prevent a vote on tariffs that is allowed under the law.
Mr. Speaker, I will be clear here because the stakes are very high. We are
A motion to discharge Ranking Member Meeks' resolution is not allowed because Republicans literally changed the definition of what a day is to protect themselves from voting on tariffs.
Now, we should have been able to call it up after 15 days, but Republicans are pretending 34 days is less than 15 days. Republicans rigged the rules to protect Donald Trump, Mr. Speaker, and to protect themselves from voting on his tariffs.
H. Res. 211, which the Republican majority adopted in March, changed the operation of the calendar.
Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, I have the resolution in front of me and it says that each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025.
So that resolution changed the operation of the National Emergencies Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, also known as the law, to make sure that Members of this House cannot force a vote on Trump's tariffs.
Is that right, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's inquiry is not relevant to the discussion.
In fact, that is right, Mr. Speaker. You may not want to opine on it, but the truth is, Republicans rigged the rules to prevent a vote on these tariffs, a vote that Members of this body would have been able to demand if we were following the law. I want to get to the bottom of why we can't vote on these tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, the National Emergencies Act states that a joint resolution to terminate a national emergency passed by one House shall be referred to the appropriate committees of the other House at which point the 15-day clock would start if Republicans hadn't magically stopped time.
According to that provision in law, Senator Kaine of Virginia's resolution terminating the national emergency to impose tariffs on Canada which was adopted by the Senate last week in a bipartisan vote, but according to that, that bill must be referred to committee.
Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's inquiry is, again, not relevant to the proceedings before the House.
Well, it is not relevant to the discussion because Republicans won't let us discuss the tariffs, but that is certainly how I read ``shall,'' Mr. Speaker. Senator Kaine's resolution to force a vote on Trump's tariffs has been sitting on Speaker Johnson's desk since last week.
Mr. Speaker, if a measure is held at the Speaker's desk, it is not subject to a discharge petition and we can't have an up-or-down vote on these tariffs. The Speaker of the House right now is singlehandedly preventing Members from forcing a vote on these tariffs, again, a right that is in the law.
Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Speaker, you might not want to answer and you might not like that I am pointing it out, but that is exactly what is happening here.
Republicans have rigged the rules by literally redefining the definition of a day to prevent us from voting on Trump's tariffs, and the Speaker of the House is locking the Senate resolution in his desk.
These are the types of procedural tricks that Republicans try to bury in the rules and hope that no one ever notices because they are too confusing or too in the weeds. Not only did we notice, Mr. Speaker, but we are going to make sure that the American people notice, too. One way or the other, the American people are going to render a verdict on what is happening here in this Chamber, and if it doesn't happen on this floor, you can be damn sure it is going to happen at the ballot box.
These tariffs are going to be a disaster and the fact that Republicans are too scared to stand up and vote for or against them just proves my point.
This is a disgrace. This is the people's House. We are supposed to debate serious issues on this floor, and the Republican leadership of this House is rigging the rules so we can't do that. That is absurd and that is a national disgrace.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are not afraid to debate tariffs, but we have four bills to debate here today. That is the business that we need to be dealing with.
I will point out to my friends, again, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
The Democrats love to claim foul on Republicans shutting off national emergencies, but perhaps they should reconsider given their own record when it comes to tolling day counts.
They want to claim that Republicans are stopping time, but perhaps they forget just a few short years ago, in the Democrat-controlled 117th Congress, their own House rules package, H. Res. 8, conveniently stopped time for both legislative and calendar days regarding a myriad of processes.
Let me read, Mr. Speaker, from their rules:
``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. 1546.
``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not constitute a legislative day for purposes of clause 7 of Rule XIII.
``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not constitute a calendar or legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of Rule XII.''
Now, what is this, the pot calling the kettle black? I am just not sure of that. I do think it is important, though, to remind our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this happened. Mr. McGovern wants the country to know what is going on here. We want the country to know what is going on here, too.
Let me say that this is a package that all four minority members of our committee voted in favor of, by the way. These manipulations were maintained for nearly 18 months in subsequent rules with continued support by the committee's minority counterparts.
Similarly, when it comes to the National Emergencies Act, in a rule they permanently blocked votes terminating the COVID national emergency, despite Mr. Gosar introducing two separate disapproval resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, be careful what you accuse us of because we have the facts and the record on our side.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what you just heard from the distinguished Chairwoman of the Rules Committee is basically that the Republicans are too afraid to debate and vote on tariffs. That is what we just heard. What is really interesting is that in this rule that they are bringing to the floor, they have a bill that will actually raise bank fees on consumers, believe it or not. They want to give banks the authority to charge more for overdrafts. That is in this bill.
They are too busy to talk about the fact that Donald Trump is raising the cost of living and the cost of everything for average people in this country, but they are not too busy to talk
This is so messed up it is hard to believe. Right now, if you talk to anybody in your district, if you did townhalls, which I know Republicans don't want to do anymore--but if you did townhalls, people are really nervous about not only the stock market and the uncertainty there, but they are really nervous about rising prices.
People are trying to make ends meet and they are really concerned about what is happening. Yet, Republicans are just too busy to talk about the impact of these tariffs on their constituents here in the House of Representatives?
Let that sink in, Mr. Speaker. This is ludicrous.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.J. Res. 91, a joint resolution to terminate the reckless tariffs that President Trump has put in place.
These tariffs are the largest middle-class tax increase in the last 50 years. Consumers are worried because their prices are skyrocketing and iPhone prices could go up as much as $350. Every American with a retirement account is worried because they are seeing their savings evaporate. The S&P 500 registered its worst week since March 2020 when Donald Trump, by the way, was also President.
Farmers are worried because the tariffs might put them out of business. Some of them are already renting out their land since they know they likely won't be able to make anything in 2025.
The result of all this needless chaos: less money in consumers' pockets, less confidence in our country, and less certainty about our future. That is why we must bring up H.J. Res. 91 to put Republicans on record, to let Congress do our jobs, and to keep our constituents' hard-earned money in their pockets.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for allowing me to speak. I thank the ranking member for all of his hard work because for sure what the President of the United States has done was lied to the American people and broke a promissory note.
That promissory note was that he told the American people on day one, inflation would go down. Prices would go down on day one, he said. Instead, what the President has done is, unleashed an economic chaos on the American people. Recessions are normally caused by complex factors like oil price shocks, overleveraged financial markets, or global pandemics.
This new economic disaster isn't caused by war or by an act of nature. It is the result of one man who lied to the American people. His name is Donald J. Trump.
With no coherent plan, he is imposing the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. That is what tariffs are: taxes that will increase the cost of living, your food, the car you need to drive to work, your appliances, and your electronics. All of it will increase what the average family will spend by more than $5,000 a year.
Trump has launched a trade war that has united our allies and our adversaries against us. I could go on and on about the absurd incompetence underpinning Trump's trade war: the pseudo emergency used as an authority, the nonsense methodology used to justify the tariff rates, or the ever-changing rationale about the reasons for starting this tariff tantrum.
The tariffs have already triggered a stock market plunge, wiping out trillions of dollars in value. That is the hard-saved money for your children's education, for your 401(k), and for your dreams of retirement. It is only going to get worse.
As prices go up, people will have less money to eat at their local restaurants, see a movie, enjoy a family vacation. That means lower demand, slower growth, job losses in every sector of our economy from Main Street shops to factory floors.
The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
While Trump may have started this, if this Republican majority chooses to duck a vote on my resolution ending these tariffs, then they will own this, too. They will own the higher prices. They will own the jobs lost. They will own the retirement savings erased. They will own all of it.
Mr. Speaker, join us, sign on, and stop this tax of American people. This is what should be happening for us to continue to be the greatest Nation on the planet and make sure that things are affordable for the American people. Let's join together in defeating the previous question and put an end to this self-imposed economic wrecking ball.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, the Reading Clerk told us what we were here to do today. In my opening remarks, I read out what it is we are here to do today. We have a rule, and then we are going to have four bills to vote on. That is what we are here for.
Our Democratic colleagues are desperate. They do not want to talk about this rule and what it does or the underlying bills. They want us to try to look at shiny objects over here, Mr. Speaker, that have nothing to do with what we are here to do today.
What Republicans want to do is focus on what we are here to do today. We could talk about tariffs sometime, yes. We are happy to do that, but let's talk about what we have to do here.
The Democrats don't want to talk about these because they correct issues that the Biden administration did wrong, these midnight rules of the CFPB. They don't want to talk about the rogue judges who have been overruled by the Supreme Court. They don't want to talk about what is happening here and now. They want to try to distract the American people with other issues.
Mr. Speaker, let's deal with the issues at hand. Let's focus on those, do our job as Members of Congress, and get on with our business today.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I talked about all these issues last week. I talked about how I was opposed to the bill that raises bank fees on regular people. I talked about how their bill to make it more difficult for women to vote was a bad idea. I talked about the importance of helping new parents be able to vote by proxy.
Forgive me if I am not following your made-up rules, but we already discussed all this stuff last week.
When is the time that we are going to actually talk about the tariffs and about the fact that Donald Trump is raising prices on average people in this country? When are we going to have time to do that?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying welcome back to my friends across the aisle. It is really nice to have them back here in the people's House, especially after last week.
Their leadership shut down the United States House of Representatives rather than accommodate new moms voting remotely with a newborn child. Stellar work, my friends. You have simultaneously managed to shut down the House and enrage millions of moms across America.
The American people actually want a government that represents them, and that is why they are also outraged by the agenda that Republicans have in this rule and are putting on the House floor this week, including the SAVE Act, which would disenfranchise millions of Americans, including millions of married women. You refuse to take up an amendment that would protect them, so congratulations to my friends.
How about the No Rogue Rulings Act that is also being heard this week? It would undermine the courts.
There are a couple of bills to roll back consumer protections to keep banks from ripping them off.
Is that your agenda? That is it? You are going to rip off American consumers, undermine their voting rights, undermine the judiciary, and insult moms? Cool. Yes, this sounds like a great agenda.
Oh, I forgot, you are also going to tank the economy while Donald Trump is playing golf, and you are going to try to pass a budget that literally will cost the American people $37 trillion over the next 30 years while gutting their Medicaid and their food and housing assistance.
Now, luckily, the American people are not falling for it, and millions of Americans are speaking out and marching in the streets. It is because of their actions that Elon Musk--thank you very much--is finally leaving the building.
Make no mistake, this agenda will continue, as we see here this week. That is why it is vital that the American people continue to speak up and speak out, keep marching, keep showing up, and keep telling these folks that we reject their agenda and its harmful impacts to the American people, and we will not allow it to continue.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am going to take a little time to address the importance of the No Rogue Rulings Act and why the American people are demanding action against this unchecked abuse of nationwide injunctions.
The fact is activist liberal judges have been utilizing nationwide injunctions in an unprecedented fashion. There have been 17 identified cases in which Federal courts issued nationwide injunctions between January 20, 2025, and March 27, 2025, against the Trump administration.
Compare this to the 19 injunctions issued during the entire Obama Presidency, 8 years, Mr. Speaker. Fifty-five such injunctions were issued against the first Trump administration, 4 years, Mr. Speaker. If we look back to the Presidency of George W. Bush, only 12 nationwide injunctions were issued in 8 years. Some estimate that only 27 nationwide injunctions were issued in the 20th century. This exponential increase demands action.
Nationwide injunctions frequently extend far beyond the immediate parties in a lawsuit, affecting entire populations and jurisdictions not involved in the original dispute. These overreaching rulings create significant uncertainty about Federal policies, drain taxpayer resources, and embolden unelected judges to subvert the will of the American people by thwarting the democratically elected President and Congress.
Article III authorizes Congress to determine what types of cases inferior courts have jurisdiction to review. In some past cases, Congress has exercised this power by stripping Federal courts of jurisdiction to hear certain classes of cases, but that drastic action is avoided in this legislation. Instead, it takes a very measured approach. The bill would curtail the scope of injunctive relief but still allow for nationwide injunction under the appropriate circumstances.
Injunctions would still be permitted. What won't be permitted is having an activist judge from a liberal enclave in the country impose a decision that goes far beyond the subject presented before him or her in the courtroom.
The American people shouldn't be robbed of exercising their policy preferences by judicial extremism, and it would apply evenly to future Democratic and Republican administrations alike.
The policies being put forth by the Trump administration are novel, creative, and bold. That is what the American people expected when they voted for President Trump. Just because a policy is untested or unprecedented doesn't mean it is illegal. Democrats may impugn President Trump all they want, but these fundamental constitutional concerns are best settled at the appellate level.
This legislation does nothing to affect the proper avenues for constitutional challenges. Congress has always reserved this power to bring order to the judicial branch. We simply want to impose some order on the chaotic episodes unfolding in our courts.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain why new moms cannot proxy vote. The issue is very simple, and the answer is even simpler to understand. It is because men don't have children.
If men had children, there would be proxy voting. After all, it was over 100 years that this facility was in place, and we did not have a facility for ladies, a ladies' room.
Men have taken for granted the needs of women, and if women would but only stand up across the board in this House, if all the women would, we could get this done, but there are some women who are still siding with men, who don't want women to have the right to vote when they are new moms.
I am saying ``new parents'' now, but I am talking about moms. I think every man has a good reason to want to do this because you ought to respect the person who carried you for 9 months, labored with you, and gave you the breath of life. It is time to make a change.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. The entire world is watching in astonishment as Donald Trump lights the American economy on fire.
Our voters deserve to know where their Members of Congress stand on these tariffs. I just tried to force a vote. I was shut down because the truth is they know this will be a disaster, and that is why they are blocking Democrats from demanding a vote.
Republicans don't want to lower costs anymore. They want to lower the standard of living, and that is exactly what these tariffs will do.
Now, let's be clear. Foreign countries don't pay the tariffs. We do. American businesses, American farmers, American families, that is who pays the tariffs, and unfortunately, the damage has been done.
Our trading partners are abandoning us. Our allies don't trust us. Our adversaries are laughing at us. The cherry on top is that Trump can't even explain the goal. He is slapping tariffs on everyone, including uninhabited islands but not on Russia, no tariffs on Russia. There are tariffs on Ukraine, but not on Russia. I am sure Putin is thrilled.
This is a gut punch to middle America. This is a tax on every single family in America. This is a disaster for our future. Congress needs to do its job. It is time for every Republican to put their name on this mess or finally stand up and stop it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have to respond about the fact that we are denying new mothers and prospective mothers the opportunity to vote with this legislation. That is just not true. It is going to need to be refuted over and over again.
What we have done is accommodate not only prospective and new mothers but we have also accommodated other Members who might need that accommodation. Let me be clear about that. That is absolutely true.
Mr. Speaker, House Republicans remain laser focused on governing and advancing legislation that addresses pertinent issues across the Nation. Our foot is placed firmly upon the gas pedal of solving problems the American people want us to solve.
The four pieces of legislation that will be considered under this rule are part of our governing efforts and are in alignment with the mandate that Americans gave us last November. Shielding consumer choice, protecting consumer choice, and combating foreign influence within higher education in America are issues that Americans care about. We have heard their concerns, and we are addressing them yet again this week.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 294 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
Providing for Consideration of S.J. RES. 18, Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions...
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 294) providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 18) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 28) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications''; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1526) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 22) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes; and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213, nays 211, not voting 9, as follows:
Messrs. FIELDS, FROST, MAGAZINER, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, and Mr. HUFFMAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I call up the bill (H.R. 1526) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the bill is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, printed in the bill, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each will control 30 minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1526.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, in recent years it has become glaringly obvious that Federal judges are overstepping their constitutional bounds under Article III of the Constitution which applies that lower courts are created under statute by Congress. Pursuant to congressional action, district judges are limited to the plaintiff before them that has nexus in their district.
Madam Speaker, in short, that means that a district judge needs to be confined to their district and to people who are in their district. Case after case, over decades, has shown that when they fail to do so, the cases are thrown out.
More importantly, if they were to continue to do what is generally called nationwide injunctions, then, in fact, there would be no need for a 5-4 or 6-3 decision by the High Court. The High Court of nine must reach a majority in order to make something the law of the land, and yet a single district judge believes they can make the law of the land.
Since President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges whom they have sought out to take their cases and weaponized nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives.
Proof of that occurred just yesterday when, by a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, yet another judge's national ban was overturned.
These actions touch on many of the most critical issues facing our country, such as securing our borders, reforming insufficient and ineffective government bureaucracy, and strengthening our military.
Let me be absolutely clear. These sweeping injunctions represent judicial activism at its worst. Don't just take my word for it, Madam Speaker. As late as October of last year, the Solicitor General of the Biden administration urged the end of these practices, stating that, in fact, the Biden administration has to win every time, but the opposition only has to win one out of even one dozen cases. That is exactly the problem we are facing.
The Supreme Court regularly considers cases that are done in the ordinary course where one district judge, and perhaps a jury, rules one way and another rules another way, and the courts, through the appellate process, come up with a single law of the land. However, they do so looking at the arguments of both winning and losing, and they do so while the administration is not nationally and internationally banned.
National injunctions are being used to halt executive actions and executive orders not just for plaintiffs before the court but across the entire country, including individuals and entities that are not even parties to the litigation and, in many cases, may not favor the outcome and would not have been willing plaintiffs.
This undermines the system of government. It empowers individual, unelected judges to dictate national policy and to thwart the Constitution to take rights reserved to Congress and the President of the United States.
NORRA, the No Rogue Rulings Act, puts an end to this type of abuse. Under NORRA, we reaffirm the principles that district court orders can only bind parties before the court and not nonparties across the country. This reform will also discourage the growing trend to forum shop, Madam Speaker. If you can go to Hawaii because you can find a judge who will rule against an action taken here in the District of Columbia, then you will do so if you can get a nationwide injunction. If you can only enjoin individuals who may not even be affected by it, then there is no incentive to do so.
Madam Speaker, there are 677 current judge positions not including those on senior status. There are 677 individuals, each of whom can exceed their authority and stymie the legitimate actions of government. In some cases, these judges have even ordered the payment of amounts when the administration has determined that there is great risk of fraud.
During the last administration, they objected to this. They tried to stop it. Even in the last days before the election, the Biden administration was doing everything they could to accomplish what we are doing here today. In fact, there was even legislation in the last Congress authored by Democrats to do it.
This is not a partisan issue. It may be a timely issue for this President, but that does not make it partisan. To do the right thing at this time is critical.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the No Rogue Rulings Act and restore the constitutional balance and respect for separation of powers, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1526.
I heard the majority was bringing legislation forward to clean up a major policy crisis taking place within the first 100 days of the Trump administration, and that sounded pretty good to me because we are drowning in crises. The problem is that this bill does not address any of the real major policy crises of the first 100 days that Trump has caused for America. They are wasting our time with this bill by misdiagnosing and mislabeling the judicial response to these crises as a crisis itself.
The whole country is reeling right now from the economic disaster Trump has plunged us into. He destroyed more than $10 trillion in American wealth in 1 single week, and then he went golfing and bragged to America about winning the tournament at his own golf course. Madam Speaker, that is like bragging about being endorsed by your own campaign manager.
With so much winning, the country can hardly stand how much winning Trump is doing for himself, Elon Musk, and his billionaire Cabinet. Perhaps he could have yelled fore on the fareway so tens of millions of Americans could have taken our retirement savings out of the stock market before he hit us in the head with a golf ball.
Trump's ruinous tariffs have crushed our relationships with democratic allies and loyal trade partners like Canada, Mexico, the U.K., Germany, and France while delicately carving out an exception for Trump's friends in the home office back in Russia.
When asked why Putin uniquely escapes the wrath of Trump's global trade war, we are told it is because Trump doesn't want to interfere with the negotiations taking place between Russia and Ukraine for a cease-fire, an explanation that might have somewhat more force if Trump had not made sure that the tariffs do apply to Ukraine as they do.
The basis for this most imbecilic and destructive trade war in the history of the world is the profound economic research and policy writings of one Ron Vara, a completely fictional economist conjured up by Trump adviser Peter Navarro, a real person whom Elon Musk just called a moron and dumb as a sack of bricks.
Navarro's last name, delightfully, is an anagram for Ron Vara. Madam Speaker, you can try this yourself at home. Navarro turns into Ron Vara. Navarro figured that out himself. That is perhaps the greatest achievement of the Trump administration so far. What an enchanting and clever basis upon which to crash the economy of the United States of America.
Despite the fact that Congress, not the President, has the power to regulate international commerce and legislate tariffs, our GOP colleagues don't even want to have one hearing on the breathtaking economic folly and wreckage of this fling into the abyss of trade war with the world, much less do they want to do anything to reverse this policy nightmare for tens of millions of businesspeople, farmers, workers, retirees, and consumers being throttled by this historic, self-inflicted wound.
No, today they want to talk about the real emergency, which is the power of the United States district courts to issue universal injunctions rather than just injunctions that apply to the specific parties in the case.
It seems like a rather boutique and esoteric issue to raise in the middle of an economic catastrophe that they just foisted upon America, but there is a method to the madness. You see, Madam Speaker, Federal judges have issued at least 68 court orders that block or pause the administration's lawlessness to prevent irreparable harm in the country from his unconstitutional actions. The judges deciding here were appointed by five different Presidents, both Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents, in 11 different district courts across seven circuits. The judges have explained in painstaking detail what is unlawful about Trump's executive orders and actions.
Trump has offered no substantive critique of their legal reasoning, but he and Musk still want the judges impeached. They say they should be removed from office simply for striking down the President's illegal policies, which is odd given that Trump and his party demanded for 4 years that Federal judges strike down President Biden's policies like student loan forgiveness or immigration policies or EPA action on climate change.
They seem to embrace Marbury v. Madison and judicial review of Democratic Presidential actions but not of Republican actions. They say that is because Trump just won an election. He beat Kamala Harris by 2 million votes.
Guess what, Madam Speaker. Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by over 7 million votes, and that didn't stop them from suing to stop numerous Biden policies they thought were unlawful. Sometimes they won, and sometimes they lost. It is the same now. Nearly 160 cases have been brought against Trump and Musk's actions. Trump has won some, and he has lost some.
However, our colleagues protest that Trump is different because the courts have issued relief in at least 57 different cases, a record number of cases in American history, at record speed. That is true, but if it seems like an incredible number of cases to lose in less than 100 days, recall that Trump is engaged in a record number of illegal actions at a breathtaking velocity never seen before in U.S. history.
As of today, he has already issued 111 executive orders in less than 100 days. Biden issued 162 in all 4 years. Trump can issue as many as he wants, but he has got to make them constitutional because if they are not, they are going to get struck down.
When Trump denounces the judges as radical left judges and lunatics who have gone rogue like Judge Boasberg, he is just advertising his complete ignorance of the Federal bench.
Judge Boasberg is the chief judge of the U.S. District Court, first nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, who was Justice Kavanaugh's roommate at Yale and a pillar of the conservative bar.
We have impeached only 15 judges in U.S. history, always for serious misconduct like taking bribes, embezzlement, corruption, and habitual drunkenness on the bench. It was never because of a doctrinal disagreement and never because of a judge's legal ruling. As Chief Justice Roberts said a few weeks ago, the proper response in our democracy to a judicial decision that you disagree with is to appeal the ruling, not impeach the judge.
Donald Trump has gotten some relief in some of his cases already. The system is working. We don't need to turn the whole world upside down to distract from the economic calamities they have brought upon us.
All this would be fun and games except the rhetorical assault by Trump and Musk and our colleagues against the judiciary has turned into something far more sinister in some quarters: death threats, bomb threats, and online intimidation and harassment of judges. These judges are currently targets of an onslaught of social media taunts and attacks that call for their exile to GTMO or label them a national security threat or traitors. Even worse, this campaign of vilification has spread to their families, including attacks on a Federal judge's daughter who had her photo and place of work posted on a social media site by Elon Musk to his 290 million followers. These threats followed an actual bomb threat targeting the sister of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. It is a dangerous situation.
Now our colleagues want to pass the No Rogue Rulings Act which would effectively ban Federal district courts from providing nationwide relief against unlawful actions by the administration. Litigants could request injunctive relief only with respect themselves.
So, for example, if the President establishes a church or bans newspapers or imposes martial law, then each citizen in America would have to bring his or her own case because the courts would not be able to rule to strike down unconstitutional actions generally. That is patently absurd, and we are going to be able to explain how this legislation is a massive distraction
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, all across the country, at record levels, activist judges are impeding President Trump's America First agenda with nationwide injunctions, depriving the American people of the changes they demanded in November.
To put how unprecedented this is into perspective, President Trump has faced more than twice as many nationwide injunctions as Presidents Bush, Obama, and Biden combined. In addition, more than 90 percent of these nationwide injunctions have been issued by Democrat appointed judges.
I am calling this what it is: weaponized political lawfare.
There are 677 district court judgeships nationwide, and as of now, if just one of these judges decides to block an executive action, they can singlehandedly halt the President's agenda.
I am sure our Founders did not envision this extreme constitutional overreach from the judicial branch. Fortunately, Congressman Issa's No Rogue Rulings Act will correct this discrepancy by ensuring that district court judges cannot issue nationwide injunctions.
The American people demand sweeping change from us. From cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in our bloated Federal Government to deporting the millions of illegal alien invaders, we need to make progress.
Right now, a single district court judge can impede this progress on a whim, essentially holding the America First agenda hostage indefinitely. This must end.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the No Rogue Rulings Act to stop this judicial tyranny from harming the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1526, a bill that would prohibit district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want you to believe that somehow these nationwide injunctions being issued by courts across the country against Donald Trump's illegal and unconstitutional actions are unfair. Well, here is the message. If you don't like the injunctions, don't do illegal, unconstitutional stuff. That is simple.
Nationwide injunctions play an essential role in protecting our democracy and holding the political branches accountable. Without them, thousands or millions of people could be harmed by these illegal or unconstitutional government policies.
Just look at Donald Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship. In a lawsuit brought in my home State of Washington, a Reagan-appointed Federal judge--not a Democratic-appointed Federal judge, a Reagan- appointed Federal judge--ruled that the order was blatantly unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment plainly states that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens.
What is next, stripping citizenship from U.S. citizens? That is in the Trump extremist playbook, as well. So is apparently kidnapping and disappearing people, including those with legal status, without any due process, as well as getting rid of entire departments established by Congress and suppressing freedom of speech and dissent.
These are the hallmarks of an authoritarian who wants to hold all power, and the courts are doing what they are supposed to do and issuing nationwide injunctions against this kind of abuse of power.
Somehow, my colleagues never complained about nationwide injunctions when dozens were issued against former Presidents Obama and Biden, but now that it is against Donald Trump, they want to rig the rules to give the President free rein to do whatever he wants, regardless of whether it is illegal or unconstitutional.
Well, get this: We do not have kings in America.
Vote ``no'' on this bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the No Rogue Rulings Act.
Historically, district court rulings only applied to the parties before the court, but over the past 15 years, district courts have increasingly asserted that their rulings apply nationwide, interfering with the legitimate Article II powers of the President of the United States.
We are experiencing a constitutional crisis, a judicial coup d'etat. In February alone, district judges issued more nationwide injunctions against President Trump than against Bush, Obama, and Biden during their entire administrations.
District judges from Democratic jurisdictions are preventing the President from fulfilling his duty to keep us safe.
Last night, the Supreme Court called out judge shopping and reversed an order issued by a Democrat-appointed D.C. judge that blocked the Trump administration from removing violent Venezuelan gang members from our country. The Supreme Court said that this case should never have been brought in D.C. but rather in Texas where the individuals can file individual petitions challenging their individual cases.
The Supreme Court can and should rein in these rogue courts. In the meantime, the No Rogue Rulings Act rebalances the separation of powers as the Founders intended.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this critical legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record ``The Lost History of the `Universal' Injunction,'' a law review article by Mila Sohoni refuting what was just stated by the gentleman. The universal injunction, the nationwide injunction, goes back at least to 1913 and has been used repeatedly over the last century.
Mr. Speaker, the link to the entire document can be found here: https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/920- 1009__Online.pdf.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet.
Mr. Speaker, the judicial branch ensures that people, corporations, and even other branches of government follow the law, and if a President does something illegal, which this President is famous for, the only way for the courts to prevent thousands of people from being harmed is to order a nationwide injunction that stops him from doing that illegal thing.
It is essential to our democracy that the courts can serve as a check on a President who is trampling people's rights.
While proponents of the bill say that each aggrieved person should bring their own case, that just does not make sense. There is no way that each of the thousands of people harmed could pay for their own lawyer, get into a courtroom, and try their own case.
Aside from the difficulty and cost to everyone, our courts could never handle that volume of cases. With dockets already bursting at the seams, justice would be delayed. It would be so delayed that it would be denied. It would be inefficient, cost prohibitive, and unfair.
That is what Republicans want because Federal courts keep ruling against Trump's unlawful and unconstitutional executive actions. Therefore, they are trying to hamstring the courts so that Trump can't be stopped.
We need our courts to continue to serve as a bulwark of democracy against the Trump administration's flood of illegal actions. That is why I rise today in opposition to this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an April 2, 2025, letter addressed to Pam Bondi from 500 law firms and lawyers across the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, a link to the entire document can be found here: https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2025/04/Final-Letter-Regarding-Protecting-the-Legal-Profession__- 4.2.25-Upd-1.pdf.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Both Democrats and some Republicans have assailed the clearly unlawful nature of this trade war instituted by President Trump based on tariffs against the entire world except for Vladimir Putin in Russia, and Congress has the power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate commerce internationally. We have the power over tariffs.
The President purportedly is asserting powers under a statute which applies to emergencies in extraordinary and unusual situations. Then he said this has been going on for decade after decade.
Well, then how could that be an emergency? How could that be extraordinary and unusual?
There will be a lawsuit on this, and what our colleagues are saying is that if there is a bipartisan lawsuit that goes to court which stops these tariffs that are crippling businesses and farmers and wiping out people's retirements across the country, and if they succeed in one district, say, in Minnesota or Wisconsin or New York, you have to go to every one of 94 different districts in the country to get the benefit of that. That is what they want to do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for bringing us this important piece of legislation.
I haven't been here very long in this body, but I have learned something, and it is amplified today. That is that this town has a remarkable ability to snatch disagreement out of the jaws of consensus. This is an issue that liberal thinkers and conservative thinkers have both said is a problem that we ought to address.
Justice Kagan has been quoted widely as having said that it just cannot be the case that a single district court judge can hold up Federal policy for the lengthy period of time nationwide that it takes for the ordinary appeals process to run.
On the other end, Justice Gorsuch has suggested that these nationwide injunctions bear a remarkable similarity to a step in the legislative, not judicial, process.
In our branch of government, we had Democrats in both bodies of the legislative branch who proposed legislation just a Congress ago saying this is a problem we ought to deal with. Their legislation looked a lot like part of this bill, three-judge panels. Now, we have Republicans saying the same thing.
We ought to agree this is just the right thing to do as a matter of public policy, not because of who is in the White House or who is the plaintiff bringing a particular lawsuit.
Look, district courts are supposed to resolve disputes between litigants. If we adopt this thing and make it law, there is no doubt any citizen who can walk into court today can still walk into court and get relief for anything they are entitled to relief for. What they can't do is get a district court judge to order that an entire Federal policy nationwide be disabled.
There is still a relief valve because we added an amendment in committee that allows States to go into court to seek that type of nationwide relief. Why? It is because States are unique. It is not the national association of people who lost last year's election. It is a State organized under our Constitution that has a unique role in our Federal system and an interest in nationwide relief.
We ought to adopt this bill and do what everybody agrees is the right thing.
Mr. Speaker, the Trump administration is the most lawless in American history. That is why so many of his policies are being blocked through nationwide injunctions.
Republicans see this as evidence of some liberal plot among the judiciary, but the judges who have ruled against him, some appointed by such noted liberals as George Bush and Ronald Reagan, are not part of some grand conspiracy to stop the Trump agenda. They are following the law and the facts wherever they lead them. In case after case, the law and the facts are squarely against Donald Trump and his administration.
Whether it be his efforts to rewrite the 14th Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship or his scheme to deport immigrants without even the barest hint of due process, the courts have properly acted as a check on his power.
How do Republicans respond? They respond not by urging the administration to stay on the right side of the law and the Constitution. No, they simply want to make it harder for anyone to hold this lawless administration accountable.
This bill would prohibit district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions even when the policies they find unlawful or unconstitutional have nationwide effects. That would be as if Brown v. Board of Education applied only to Brown. To do so would mean that no one could ever effectively check any administration's power, and no administration could ever be held accountable. The President would be a real, not a would-be, dictator.
This bill is a dangerous threat to the rule of law. This bill is not intended to curtail rogue judges from issuing rogue rulings. It is intended to enable a rogue administration to continue to violate the law.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can just consider that every time the other side speaks, they will be speaking in violation of our rules about disparaging the President, and you need not say it each time, I trust.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
Mr. Speaker, in order for the Supreme Court to issue a ruling that affects the entire Nation, at least five Justices of the Supreme Court must concur. Yet today, individual district court judges are asserting this authority by themselves. This is an outrageous abuse of public trust and judicial power, and it has opened a Pandora's box that threatens the fundamental constitutional order.
The Congress is elected to make law, and the President is elected to enforce it. The judiciary is appointed for the sole purpose of resolving cases and controversies brought to it by individual injured parties. Traditionally, that means an injured party seeks redress through his local district court. This simple process ensures decisions are limited to the unique circumstances of the individuals involved and are restricted to cases within that district, subject to appeal first to the circuit court and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
This ensures that multiple voices contribute to the development of a legal consensus before the matter reaches the Supreme Court. A single district judge seizing this authority for himself utterly short- circuits this process and does incalculable injury to our Constitution.
The fact that 92 percent of the nationwide injunctions blocking President Trump have been issued by district court judges appointed by Democrats, many with long histories of political activism, gravely undermines the public's confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.
I am disappointed that the Supreme Court has not set its own house in order by restoring the judicial guardrails that protect us from judge shopping, from political activism masquerading as judicial deliberation, and from the usurpation of the constitutional powers conferred upon the elected President and Congress.
Four Justices have signaled their readiness to do so. Yet, without a fifth, Congress is left with no alternative but to act on its own authority. With this bill, it does.
Mr. Speaker, nationwide injunctions are something that my friends across the aisle not only endorsed but took liberal advantage of in the last administration.
Remember Judge Matt Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas? They were lining up around the block to go forum shopping in his little district because he was the only judge to get cases against Biden there. Then Republicans praised the nationwide injunctions he issued.
The gentleman who just spoke signed a letter in praise of a nationwide injunction that was offered by Judge
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
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 gentleman for his astute observations there and say that Judge Kacsmaryk was reversed several times by higher courts.
We never came out and said, therefore, let's ban nationwide injunctions. We did say we should reform judge shopping and forum shopping. That is the real problem. Yet, it is not a problem if there is a nationwide crisis created by illegal action by an executive that a judge has the authority to counter that with an injunction and then it gets appealed up to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Speaker, there are 677 Federal district judges, and they are just that, judges. They are not the President of the United States. They are not the person who put his name on the ballot and ran nationwide, got 77 million votes, won the electoral college, and is head of the executive branch. They are judges, district judges.
I said this in committee. The real question ultimately is who gets to decide: some district judge, or the guy who put his name on the ballot; some bureaucrat, or the guy who ran for the office and got elected by we the people?
That is the fundamental question. Guess what? We just got two decisions from the United States Supreme Court who seemed to reinforce that fundamental principle that the guy who runs and heads the executive branch makes the decision.
The Supreme Court said 2 days ago that they are going to put a hold on the time on this Judge Boasberg and this migrant issue that has been with us for the last 3 weeks.
Then, yesterday, this unelected district judge in California who thinks they get to decide how many probationary employees work in the executive branch, not the guy who heads the executive branch, the Supreme Court said ``no'' to that, those leftwing groups who were seeking standing in that case.
Both decisions are wins for the Constitution, wins for the rule of law, wins for the executive branch, and, maybe most importantly, wins for common sense.
I think I have been pointing this out since Judge Boasberg issued his order when he said: Turn the plane around. Bring back the bad guys. Bring back the illegal migrants in this terrorist organization. Turn the plane around. Bring them back. That makes no sense. It makes no sense, and the American people understand it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Issa for this good piece of legislation that we passed out of the committee, I think, 4 weeks ago. I thank Representative Schmidt, who added the good amendment to it that I think makes a good bill even stronger.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just to answer a couple of things raised by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my friend.
First of all, that is not what the Supreme Court said. The Supreme Court simply said that this was not a case that should be going through the Administrative Procedure Act under the Immigration and Nationality Act. It should be done through a habeas corpus in the district of confinement, in Texas.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, the Supreme Court affirmed that there must be due process for people who were illegally taken out of this country and sent to El Salvador.
Secondly, the gentleman gives us a false choice when he says: Who gets to decide? Is it the person who puts his name on the ballot and goes out and campaigns, or is it an unelected Federal district judge?
Decide what? If we are talking about deciding the constitutionality of a law, obviously it is the judge under Marbury v. Madison. I know that the distinguished gentleman from the Committee on the Judiciary knows that the fact that Donald Trump beat Kamala Harris by 2 million votes is neither here, nor there.
Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by 7 million votes, and they still went to court pretty much on a weekly basis to try to get Joe Biden's legislation and his programs struck down. The majority believed in judicial review then. We should understand that it is very convenient for Republicans to say, all of a sudden, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't believe in judicial review just because they have the Presidency.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, Article III of our Constitution vests judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court and lower courts.
The Constitution says that this power extends to all cases arising under the Constitution or laws passed by Congress. This is a bedrock principle of American democracy, and it is not up for debate.
Yet, now that the courts are blocking his unconstitutional and unlawful actions, Donald Trump wants to claim the power for himself and his administration. Trump does not subscribe to the principle of judicial review, and he doesn't believe in the sanctity of the Constitution. He cares only about himself and getting his own way.
Mr. Speaker, Trump and his followers are threatening judges with impeachment and far worse. Bomb threats, harassing calls, and swatting all send the same terrifying message: We know where you and your family live, and you better get out of the President's way.
President Trump's attacks on the judiciary are clear violations of his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, threats to judges and their families simply cannot be tolerated, and Members of this body have a profound responsibility to speak with one voice to condemn these reprehensible tactics. I implore my Republican colleagues to set politics aside and do the right thing.
For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with important amendments to this bill.
My amendment would simply reaffirm the legislative branch's support for its coequal branch and condemn attacks on all members of the judiciary.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from North Carolina?
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the No Rogue Rulings Act, a bold and necessary step to rein in activist judges who have made it their sole mission to obstruct the agenda of President Donald J. Trump.
Let's be clear about what is at stake. In November 2024, the American people gave President Trump a mandate to secure our borders, shrink a bloated Federal bureaucracy, and put America first. He has acted swiftly, with over 100 executive orders in just 3 months, to deliver on those promises that he made to the American people.
Yet, what have we seen? Unelected judges have issued sweeping nationwide injunctions to stop him at every turn. There have been 53 lawsuits already halting deportations of dangerous criminal aliens, blocking cuts to wasteful spending, and tying the hands of a President doing his best to protect America.
This isn't justice. It is judicial tyranny. The No Rogue Rulings Act says that enough is enough. It is a simple, commonsense fix. No single district judge should have the power to grind the entire Nation to a halt with one rogue ruling.
Why should a single unelected judge override the votes of 80 million Americans? This is not how our Constitution was designed. The Founding Fathers gave Congress the power to check the courts, and it is time we began using it.
Take Judge James Boasberg's ruling last month halting deportations of Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act. President Trump invoked a law from 1798 to protect our streets, and one judge decided that he knows better than the Commander in Chief.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to take our government back from the black- robed bureaucrats. I support this bill, and I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) for introducing it.
Mr. Speaker, I note that what the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert) is referring to is what has now been affirmed as an inaccurate decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. My colleagues on the other side, in disparaging the President, keep using the word ``illegal.''
I ask that my Democratic Colleagues really reconsider. The minority may disagree with the executive actions of the President. From time to time, the court may disagree. Yet, in fact, not only are his actions not illegal, but they are well within the reach of what any President might well do in trying to defend the United States from enemies, foreign and domestic.
We can disagree about the meaning of a law that has been on the books for 225 years. We should not disparage the motives or the actions of the chief executive simply because we disagree.
Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has already rejected at least two of the actions that Donald Trump has taken since he got in. One was firing the executive director of the Office of Special Counsel. He was reinstated.
The other was reinstating a $2.1 billion aid grant that was essentially impounded and diverted by the administration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Subramanyam).
Mr. Speaker, let's take a step back and be clear on what is going on here.
This administration maybe didn't have the votes or will to get legislation through Congress, so it created these executive orders and broke the law in doing so. Some of these orders are unconstitutional, and that is why there have been so many injunctions to stop the lawbreaking.
These injunctions were celebrated by the other side when they stopped actions under the previous Democratic administrations. Yet, now that President Trump is in office, this bill exists to help the President do whatever he wants, even if it is unconstitutional.
I get asked a lot these days about what is going to happen when this President ignores the courts. Wouldn't we have a constitutional crisis on our hands?
Mr. Speaker, this bill makes it easier for the President's actions to go unchecked. By blocking nationwide injunctions, people will be powerless to quickly stop illegal and unconstitutional actions.
This bill is simply another loyalty bill for the President, up there with naming airports after him or putting his face on Mount Rushmore. Loyalty to the President should not supersede the rule of law or loyalty to uphold the Constitution. This bill doesn't just take power away from judges, but it takes power away from the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring down a little bit of the tone and remind everyone in this Chamber that the chief executive, since it was George Washington, has been charged by Congress to be the first to interpret the faithful execution of the Constitution and the amazing amount of laws that have been passed in our nearly 250 years.
During those decades, one after another, all the way back with Marbury v. Madison, there have been disagreements and the Court has interpreted, but those interpretations, including Brown v. Board of Education, historically became nationwide when the High Court by a majority ruled one direction or the other. That is the way our Founding Fathers intended it to be.
The ranking member of the full committee is a scholar and a teacher, a professor of this, and knows full well that we created under the Constitution a Supreme Court and then we gave to this branch, to Article I, to the Congress, the authority to create subordinated and specialized or limited courts. Those courts of any sort are under the Supreme Court because only the Supreme Court is to rule on the law of the land.
Now, my colleagues have noted the last administration and the fact that parties, including more than a dozen attorneys general, from time to time came and asked for and may or may not have been granted nationwide protection. This bill, as amended in committee, thoughtfully amended, in fact, takes into consideration that there may be times in which multiple States are represented before one judge. As long as that judge is the nexus of at least one, and in the case of the District of Columbia perhaps speaks for all, he or she should rule on behalf of all the plaintiffs represented in front of them.
Let it be clear: The work of the Supreme Court is not just to overturn one ruling by a judge. The Court most often in the 62 to 66 cases it takes per session, per year, rules primarily on when there is a difference between the ruling in one and the ruling in another. It rules very often because there needs to be a single voice for the law of the land.
There doesn't always have to be. The fact is, if a plaintiff comes and says they represent one of many unlawful aliens, criminals, or terrorists who have been deported under a law that has been on the books for more than 225 years, the judge has a right to rule if that defendant has a legitimate nexus in their court, has a right to rule as to that plaintiff or any others that come before him that have nexus, but to rule that the President must turn an airplane around with dangerous terrorists on it, why? Why would you do that?
The fact is, judges are shopped for. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, rightfully so, said that venue shopping has become a problem. That is not limited to Republicans or Democrats. In fact, both sides do it.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they do it in civil cases. They do it all over the place. Lawyers are very good at it, but as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and
Mr. Speaker, I rise today not just as a Member of Congress but as the son of a police officer and as someone who spent nearly two decades working in the justice system as a public defender, defense attorney, judge, and as a prosecutor. I know what it means to uphold the law, and I know what it looks like when the rule of law is under attack.
This bill is not about judicial efficiency or fairness; it is about power, raw, political power. The people who once cheered nationwide injunctions when they served their agenda now want to eliminate them because judges had the audacity to hold this administration accountable.
It is a direct assault on judicial independence and many of my Republican colleagues know it, but too many won't say it out loud for fear of political retribution or a primary financed by Elon Musk. This is not conservative, it is not constitutional, and history will remember.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will answer my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, about the remarks he just made.
He is correct that the President, of course, like Members of Congress, must also interpret and enforce the Constitution. In fact, that is the core part of the President's job, to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, says Article II, not distorted or rewritten, but to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That doesn't negate the fact that under Marbury v. Madison, it is emphatically the province and the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is in the event of an actual case or controversy.
The gentleman invoked George Washington. There is a beautiful portrait of Washington, the Trumbull portrait, that we have in the rotunda and it is a picture of George Washington surrendering his commission as the general of the Continental Forces, which Napoleon said made him the greatest man ever, that he could have stayed on as a dictator forever, and he gave up his power. He could have been President forever, but he gave up his power.
When we compare that to Donald Trump who is saying he is going to run for an unconstitutional and, yes, an illegal third term, that would be an illegal third term for him to run again to try to take office, so that is why we have courts in order to cabin the potentially limitless ambitions of Presidents. That is why we don't have kings; we have Presidents here.
Secondly, there seems to be a myth on the other side that if a President campaigns on something, then it is constitutional and the courts can't strike it down. So if the President campaigns on running again for a third term, then it is okay. Where does it say that in the Constitution? That can't be right. We are all bound by the Constitution no matter what we say during the campaign. A person could run around saying, ``I am going to be king,'' or if President Trump said, ``I will be dictator on day one.'' No, you will not be dictator on day one under the Constitution of the United States.
Why did the judge tell the administration to turn the planes around? Because of the two most beautiful words in the English language, ``due process.'' Because what they can do to noncitizens, they can do to citizens. If they can sweep anybody off the street and say we are going to send you to a torturous prison in El Salvador without any kind of hearing at all, it can happen to citizens as well as noncitizens.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just yesterday the Court ruled against the district judge by a 5-4 ruling undoing this whole question of does the President have the right to deport aliens. Yes. They said that there was a possibility of bringing a case in Texas as to one or more of them. To be honest, we have said that for quite a while that, in fact, there was a procedure and that, in fact, the chief judge of the D.C. circuit assigned himself four cases and made a decision that a chief judge should know better than.
Now, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said the right way to deal with a judge that makes a bad ruling is, in fact, appeal it. However, the right way to deal with judges who take cases, take another case, take a total of four cases so far, and seem to rule very predictably, even if inaccurately, against the Trump administration is, in fact, to rein in the excesses.
We try to do this in a measured way. I might note for the speaker that just today by a 7-2 overwhelming majority, the Court ruled, to no surprise to this Congressman, that the President has the right to dismiss probationary employees, even though an activist judge stayed that and said that he didn't have that right, that somehow everyone else can get rid of probationary employees, including the last administration that summarily dismissed immigration judges on the last days of the probationary period, and did so without seeing a nationwide injunction.
There were plenty of opportunities to disagree, but I hope that my colleagues, once again, as the speaker has so well stated, will stop claiming that these are illegal actions when we simply agree or disagree with the actions of the President and in many cases the Court finds the President is well within his rights in faithfully executing his obligations.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this bill, which is simply an attempt by House Republicans to intimidate judges who issue rulings that they simply don't like.
My colleagues concede that it is the Supreme Court which determines what the law is. Well, in today's modern age, how do you get to the Supreme Court? You go first to the district court, then through the appeals court, and then up to the Supreme Court.
Now, there are many complaints that that takes too long. I agree, but we are citing rulings on the other side of the aisle of Supreme Court rulings on these very nationwide injunctions within a few weeks.
Even former Speaker Newt Gingrich, the Republican star witness at our committee hearing last week on this topic, conceded that nationwide injunctions are appropriate in some cases. That is why this bill is not about the substance. It is clear that the House Republicans have completely abdicated their own constitutional duty to be a check and balance on the President.
The only remaining check that is left in our separation of powers is the courts, but it is not enough for my colleagues to hand over all of their own authority to the President; they want to hand over the judiciary branch's authority, too.
A fundamental principle of our Constitution is that the courts decide what the law is, not Congress and not the President, even if he is elected, which I would note for our friends down at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is true for every single President.
My colleagues complain about the high number of nationwide injunctions during the first 3 months of this Presidency. Rather than blame the judges for that, I have an idea: Stop breaking the law. This is a bad bill that gets us nowhere other than toward autocracy.
Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate, it occurs to me that Bonnie and Clyde and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid should have just denounced traditional activism and moved to change the Federal rules of civil procedure: Always better to blame the judge than to take responsibility for your own unlawful actions.
Mr. Speaker, I will close by quoting Thomas Jefferson who said during the time of the Alien and Sedition Acts: ``A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles.''
In the meantime, we are suffering the horrors and malignities of this period, but if the game runs against us sometimes as it will, we must have patience because it is a game where principles are at stake.
Mr. Speaker, as I close, since the ranking member so aptly named a couple of famous quotes and famous movies, I might call attention to the line: What we have here is a failure to communicate.
The other side, just a few months ago, supported this legislation in a more radical form than, in fact, we bring today. Thanks to Congressman Schmidt and others on the committee, we have thoughtfully amended this to make it limited, for which the ranking member and others seem to claim that we were somehow being nefarious. No, we weren't.
In the last cycle under President Biden, yes, half a dozen or so attorneys general came and disagreed with the attempt to forgive $188 billion in student loans. There was a temporary injunction on behalf of those multiple States. Lo and behold, the High Court stated and ruled that, in fact, he didn't have the authority, saving us nearly $200 billion that was being given away by Joe Biden.
Not in any way deterred by that, President Biden bragged that he circumvented it and did give away billions more. That is still something being worked on by this body.
Presidents push the limits of their authority. President Biden certainly did. President Obama famously said he didn't have the authority to do things and then did them later and dared the Court to stop him.
I think we have to come here and realize if we do our job, we are drawing the appropriate balance on one of the two branches that we do have an obligation to keep an eye on. We keep an eye on the executive branch, and the minority being the branch not of the President generally calls the strikes, the balls, and not the home runs. That is okay. They do it, and they have been doing it for 250 years. I commend them.
We also have an obligation to come together, to communicate, to not have a failure to communicate, to realize that on behalf of the American people, on behalf of the best interests of the High Court not being swamped with an amazing amount of these, and not having future Presidents find themselves deterred from executing what they believe is best in a timely fashion, that we come together and vote this moderate and, quite frankly, modest piece of legislation. It won't stop all national injunctions, but it will define more narrowly when they can be done. I hope we would do that.
I will close simply by saying Teddy Roosevelt sent the Great White Fleet out not necessarily having the money to get them back. Franklin Delano Roosevelt pushed the bounds of the Constitution for what he thought was right, including the incarceration of threats to our democracy under this very act, and the Court affirmed that.
Presidents have seen reasons to do it. This President has seen an onslaught, more than 10 million illegals, many of them actually here from terrorist gangs, and he is trying to protect our Nation.
I would hope that instead of talking about Elon Musk and others, we would come together to do something that we know if the next President is of the other party, my colleagues will be supporting something that looks amazingly like what we have in front of us today.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that all who are watching and listening take heed that this is a bill supported by the last administration and should be supported by everyone in this body.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further consideration of H.R. 1526 is postponed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a cherished tradition in my district, the kickoff of the Burbank National Little League season. This year is special as it is the 70th year of its existence.
As a lifelong baseball fan, there is nothing quite like watching young players take the field. Their energy and determination fill me with joy and hope for the future.
Sports are more than just games. They are a powerful tool to help our children build confidence, discipline, and a strong sense of teamwork.
Burbank National Little League's mission is focused on core values, good sportsmanship, honesty, loyalty, courage, and respect for authority. These are the very principles that shape not just great athletes but great civic leaders.
It is all about teamwork, a true community effort. From dedicated coaches and supportive parents to local businesses and volunteers who maintain the fields and sponsor teams, everyone plays a role.
Congratulations to the Burbank National Little League on 70 incredible seasons and over 80 league local and national championships. Here is to many more.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of eastern North Carolina legend Don Ensley.
As a community health educator, advocate, and environmental champion, Dr. Ensley also represented the best of eastern North Carolina.
After graduating from North Carolina Central, he served in the United States Army during Vietnam. Upon completing degrees at Michigan State and UNC-Chapel Hill, he joined East Carolina's faculty in 1977 as an associate professor in the School of Allied Health and Social Professions' Department of Community Health and became chair. He acted as the assistant vice chancellor for community engagement.
Dr. Ensley was one of the first African-American health sciences faculty. He was also the first president of the North Carolina Coastal Federation.
Above all, I am grateful for his mentorship, friendship, and the legacy he leaves us.
Besides rural health, he loved his late wife, Ramona, and spending time with friends, fish, and politics.
He would end his messages to me with ``Don'' and the initial from his last name, ``E'': ``DonE.''
Well DonE, Dr. Ensley.
I extend heartfelt condolences to his daughter who he loved so well, Akilah.
Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago on this House floor, I spoke
Now, the top financial minds of this country have spoken, in consecutive days of stock market tumbling, losing values for investors, including pension funds and 401(k) holdings. When is enough enough?
When will the Republican majority stand up and tell him for once: ``Mr. President, you are wrong. Your policy is misguided.''
He has imposed tariffs on Canada, Mexico, Japan, and the EU, our friends. He has not imposed tariffs on Russia, arguing they are negotiating with Ukraine, but he imposes tariffs on Ukraine.
We are now looking at the self-inflicted likelihood of a crippling recession, which could lead to a dramatic depression, all because of these policies that create chaos in financial markets across the globe.
Mr. Speaker, $11 trillion has been lost in the stock market since January 20.
This is a self-made problem based on the misguided impulses of one man. Unfortunately, we will all pay the price.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today because this administration, the folks who are in charge of this country, after promising lower prices and a better economy, are actively jacking up prices and tanking the economy.
Last year in Ohio, we imported $86 billion in goods. Now, nearly every country in the entire world is dealing with these tariffs because of a trade war that no one but one man wanted. The price of all of this will fall on us.
It is a tax on nearly everything we buy, everything we sell. Americans have watched their hard-earned savings vanish as the markets have tanked every day since the announcement.
Trump has now unilaterally placed the highest sales tax on Americans in the history of this country.
The impact? Higher prices across the board. The average family is expected to pay an extra $4,000 this year alone. They cannot afford that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Blake Schwarz, a constituent of mine from Chadwick, Illinois, who lost his life to suicide 2 years ago, leaving behind a loving wife and a daughter who he never had a chance to meet.
Blake spent the last 3 years of his life as a corrections officer at the Thompson Correctional Center. I don't think most of us understand how hard these law enforcement officers work. For Blake, he did not have the resources when he was struggling, and he did not survive.
I have heard stories from correctional officers across the country who say they need more. The Corrections Officer Blake Schwarz Suicide Prevention Act will provide officers across the country with the resources they need to live.
When Michelle came to my office and asked if I would champion this bill in honor of the love of her life, with tears welling up then as they are now, I said yes.
Today, I call on House Republicans to stop their delay and bring this bill to a vote in the name of our hero from Chadwick, Illinois.
Mr. Speaker, the March report for jobs showed that 228,000 jobs were added that month, far exceeding expectations.
Private-sector growth led the way with 209,000 new jobs, nearly double the pre-election average.
Wages are rising, with hourly earnings up nearly 4 percent over the past year.
Government job dependence is shrinking, with only 42 percent of new jobs in government-related sectors, down from nearly 75 percent under the previous administration.
Federal employment dropped by 4,000 as the administration cuts government bloat.
Construction jobs remain strong despite concerns over labor shortages.
Federal telework rates have dropped over 16 percentage points, aligning with private-sector norms.
Industrial production hit a record high.
The manufacturing output grew 0.9 percent month over month.
Auto production has surged 8.5 percent.
The core CPI inflation is at a 4-year low, easing pressure on consumers, on family budgets.
America's economy is bouncing back, stronger, leaner, and built for growth. Under President Trump's leadership, this momentum will continue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urgently address the economic harm caused by President Trump's escalating tariffs, which are destabilizing our economy and hurting our families.
These tariffs have real impacts, including the largest hit to Americans' 401(k)s since the early days of the pandemic, and a massive tax increase on lower- and middle-class families, with households facing an average increase of $4,200 per year. Today, our markets continue to nosedive.
While the U.S. retreats into trade wars, the rest of the world is moving on. Foreign countries are forming new trade relationships. With such uncertainty, businesses are unwilling to invest here.
It is time for Congress to step in. We need to reclaim our constitutional authority to manage tariffs as a Congress and develop a bipartisan strategy to promote American industry and job growth. I have heard from thousands of my constituents--Maryland families, farmers, and businesses--who have been severely impacted and have had their retirement accounts depleted. They deserve better.
It is time to protect our communities and prioritize stability over political gamesmanship.
Mr. Speaker, I am rising in opposition to the Republicans' dismantling of the Judiciary Act. It is not about justice; it is about power. It is a full-scale assault on our Constitution, the courts, and the people those courts are meant to protect.
The American people must be able to challenge unconstitutional laws and seek relief when they are harmed. That is the role of the judiciary, to be a check on our government from overreach and to safeguard our public rights. Instead of respecting that, Republicans are attacking judicial independence because they don't like the outcome when the courts rule against them.
Earlier today, Republicans in debate acknowledged that President Trump has been overruled by judges more than the last three Presidents combined, and that is because he is insistent on extending an overreach of the executive branch. We have the courts to safeguard that.
What the Republicans are trying to do is to require every single person who has been harmed in any way to file individual lawsuits, clogging up our courts, requiring them to hire expensive attorneys, precluding their access to the courts. It is unconstitutional, and this rule must be voted down. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks, I have held a number of townhalls, and one thing keeps coming up consistently: Democrats need a cohesive, concise message that clearly lays out what we are for, not just what we are opposed to.
In 1994, Newt Gingrich drew up a Contract with America. It was a simple set of priorities that Republicans promised to enact if they got the House majority. Well, it worked; the Republicans took the House in the 1994 mid-term elections.
I propose a Contract for America, one that reflects who we are as Democrats: Good wages, fair taxes, quality education, protecting Social Security and Medicare, expanding veterans' benefits, providing universal healthcare, environmental conservation, and national security.
We need a message that spells out exactly what we will do to benefit our constituents and how we will do it. That needs to start right now.
Mr. Speaker, across our country, women of color continue to experience devastating maternal healthcare inequities. As a proud mother of four children, I know firsthand how critical access to quality healthcare is for expectant mothers. However, far too many women in this country still do not have access to the vital maternal resources they need to survive and lead to good outcomes for them and for their babies.
Today, Black women are three times more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than other women. They are also twice as likely to lose an infant to premature death. These disparities have not improved for more than 30 years, and that is unacceptable.
That is why I am proud to join the Black Maternal Health Caucus to work toward reducing maternal mortality and building healthier communities for Black women and their infants.
Mr. Speaker, with March Madness coming to a close last night, it is with joy that I rise to celebrate two exceptional young, local basketball stars from northwest Ohio: Makhi Leach from Whitmer High School and Elise Bender from Anthony Wayne High School, who were named the 2025 All-Blade Basketball Players of the Year.
Makhi Leach is a force to be reckoned with on the court. He dazzled all of the audience with his skill, determination, and unshakable leadership. A playmaker in every sense of the word, Makhi not only put up impressive numbers but also lifted his teammates, making everyone around him better.
Elise Bender has proven that hard work and passion are unstoppable forces. A true competitor, Elise has set the standard for what it means to be an elite student athlete, not just through her impressive performance, but through her sportsmanship, commitment to her team, and relentless drive to push beyond her limits.
Both of these young athletes have represented their schools, families, and communities with honor, and this is only the beginning. Makhi will play next year for Bowling Green State University, while Elise will suit up for Villanova. Their talent, determination, and leadership will take them far. Northwest Ohio will be cheering them on every single step of the way. They are the future.
Mr. Speaker, it is a profound and humbling honor, as always, to address the Congress, the House of Representatives here in our Nation's Capitol. Of course, I am doing so on behalf of my incredible constituents in southeast Michigan, but also for all the residents of Michigan and this great Nation for, you see, the exercise of our democracy is ensconced and inscribed here in our House Chamber and on our House floor. We use both our voice and our vote to move our Nation forward.
As you so declared, Mr. Speaker, I am, indeed, in the minority party, and so to gather time on the House floor is sometimes a struggle. To gather time in a committee is sometimes a struggle. You push for your 1 minute, your 5 minutes, your maybe 15 minutes if you get it. Well, today I asked for an hour.
I asked for an hour because last week we had an hour booked and, of course, the House adjourned early. We all paid witness to the incredible history that a Senator from New Jersey gave to this country by breaking the largest filibuster on record. Senator Cory Booker spoke for over 25 hours in the Senate Chamber on behalf of the voices of this Nation who have questions.
Of course, we know there are 435 Members in the House Chamber, with each of us representing about 800,000 people. My colleagues from Rhode Island represent just shy of half a million people. In Michigan, I represent just about 800,000 people. We are the tenth largest State in the Union, with 13 House Members and 2 Senators here to move the will of our Nation and to pass the Nation's laws.
It is an interesting thing to do so when the size of the institution is remaining as it has been described somewhat by laws. They said in 1913, we would have 435 Members, and we haven't added new Members to the body since.
I am not addressing you, Mr. Speaker, to propose controversy, but I am here to speak on behalf of the people of Michigan, who deserve fair and equal representation for the taxpayer dollars that they provide to the Nation's Treasury.
When you look at the largest freshwater basins of our Great Lakes, when you look at the arsenal of democracy, when you see our incredible trade unions from Saginaw up to Iron Mountain working and making and delivering--the only polysilicon manufacturing in the Nation exists in Michigan, in a place called Hemlock by a company called Hemlock--you want to make sure that Michigan has its fair and equal representation.
However, Mr. Speaker, it has been a point of frustration for my State of Michigan that in my 41, nearly 42 years
Now, we are a close-knit group, the Michigan delegation. The dean of the Democrats is a woman named Congresswoman Debbie Dingell. Take a minute and understand who that is. Deborah Insley Dingell is the dean of the House Democrats of Michigan, the wife of John Dingell, the daughter-in-law of John Dingell, Sr., people who stood in this Chamber and passed things of historical importance.
John Dingell was the last World War II veteran to serve in this very Chamber, Mr. Speaker. He was a respected individual and is still referenced often by colleagues from both sides of the aisle. In fact, I will never forget coming to Congress in 2019 in the 116th session of Congress. It was my first term. I got sworn in on January 3, as we do.
Mr. Speaker, I said to my good colleague, Congresswoman Dingell: I would very much like to sit down with your husband because I knew there was a tradition where he would sit down with all new Members. Of course, I wasn't just asking personally. I was asking because we had four new Members of Congress from Michigan: Mr. Levin, Ms. Tlaib, Ms. Slotkin, and myself. I thought it would be nice for all of us to maybe meet with the Dingells.
It was winter, and we knew Mr. Dingell's health was failing or shaky. It started to fail, and we were supporting Mrs. Dingell as a delegation. Dan Kildee of Flint was our dean then, and we rallied to show our love and our support. Tragically, we lost Mr. Dingell on an early February day.
Mr. Speaker, it was really quite surreal to be in this very Chamber in my first couple of weeks, in this Congress and in the House of Representatives, paying tribute not only to a Michigan legend but an American legend.
We recognized Mr. Dingell in so many ways. We recognized Mr. Dingell in speeches on the House floor from the Democratic leadership under Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Hoyer. If we remember him, even Mr. McCarthy gave some nice words for Mr. Dingell. I was so surprised that a Member of the opposing party would have such kind and inspirational things to say about the former dean of the House of Representatives, 59 long years.
Of course, Mr. Kildee booked one of these hours with his colleagues from Michigan to recognize Mr. Dingell. We each got some time to do so as Members. I used that time to share my reflections about Mr. Dingell, and it was so very humbling. It was never anything I expected to do in my second month in this Chamber, but I did it.
The very next day, a sacred and incredible man, Mr. John Lewis, came up to me on the House floor. It is very crowded on the House floor, Mr. Speaker. You notice this when we are voting. It is 435 people packed here on the House floor. There is staff. It is sometimes hard to move around. You have to get your vote in, Mr. Speaker. You can't get too entranced in the conversation, or you miss a vote.
Mr. Lewis came up to me, and he tapped me on the shoulder. He said to me that he heard my words about his friend, John Dingell, and that he appreciated them.
I have shared that story on a few occasions but not necessarily publicly. I have shared it back in my district and with friends and in memory of both Johns, both legends, both titans of the 20th century. I have shared it with our Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries in recognition of the moments of passing the torch that we find ourselves in, in American Government and as we push for American change.
It was really something else that Mr. Lewis and I had that exchange. It caught me by surprise. Sharing it right now is incredibly humbling, and I appreciate and am grateful for the time to be able to do so, Mr. Speaker, on this House floor.
We know that we are a Nation of great passion, of great debate, and of people who come from all over to pay witness to our lawmaking. People come from all over to get their ideas and their thoughts across. They look up at a Capitol that inspires them, that moves them, and that brings together our democracy.
Next year, we will celebrate 250 years of America's very existence as a Nation. It is really quite something. In some ways it seems like a long time, and it also seems like a short time. We know we are still writing America's story. We know that we don't engage in politics on the House floor such as campaigning.
I would like to make an ethical reflection about our politics which is that at some point an election is had. An election is had. An election happens, and we have to govern. We are governing. We have to govern. We are always thinking about the last election and then the next election. We also have to think about governing. We have to look at it responsibly and reasonably.
Of course, we recognize that it can feel right now in this moment frustrating for people, for Members, for the passions that so many have if you are not in the governing seat of authority.
Of course, I remember that quite well in the 117th session of Congress. If it is okay, Mr. Speaker, to recognize what the makeup of that session was, we had a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic President.
Of course, we had a country in the early days of 2021 that was still reeling from the effects and the implications of a pandemic that wasn't yet over. In fact, people, if we recall correctly, Mr. Speaker, were just beginning to take that vaccine. We were just beginning to push for people to get vaccinated, not forced. I don't think people want to be forced to do anything, but we wanted to put an end to the pandemic.
A colleague, of course, through the great tradition of our Michigan delegation, a gentleman by the name of Congressman Walberg, a longtime serving Member of this institution and now the chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee that I sit on, he and I had been working on a resolution together. We had actually introduced it in the 116th Congress at the very end of the session.
With the introduction of this resolution, we said to ourselves and to the Nation that we wanted the American people to get vaccinated. We also really wanted to make sure that our teachers could get vaccinated because people, Mr. Speaker, wanted to get their kids back in the classroom. They wanted to get them back in the classroom safely and soundly.
I know we don't like to dwell on this pandemic period, but I share that because we reintroduced that resolution early into the 117th Congress. I know we don't--well, maybe we do. Maybe we don't want to dwell on some of the actions that occurred in the early days of the 117th Congress. There was an attempt to certify the election that is usually pretty standard. We saw that happen this term. It was, again, pretty standard.
On that day, January 6--I know people hear that day a lot--it was not so standard. It was kind of frenzied to say the least. It was very divisive for this Nation. It was very divisive for this Chamber. I think it is fair to say that people are still not over it, and we need to be honest about that. Of course, we have taken thousands of votes since then.
I thought it was responsible to continue to encourage and support our educators, the great educators, the great Michigan Education Association, the AFT, the American Federation of Teachers. These are incredible unions that protect their members and want to make sure they are getting, at the very least, fair pay, raises, pensions, and the like because, gosh knows, it is not easy to be a teacher. It is certainly easier to be a teacher when you are safe from a deadly and lethal virus that killed a million Americans.
Mr. Speaker, to reflect on our present time and the moment we find ourselves in, it is right and fair for us, and for me as a Member of Congress, who is the co-chair of the House Manufacturing Caucus and is a ranking member on the Research and Technology Subcommittee for the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to make some notes and snapshots of what is taking place right now.
It is not to accept that we have a lot of actions going on right now that are somewhat challenging to our Constitution. Article I is important to read and remember and to recognize about how
Of course, it has been somewhat jaw-dropping to see the frontward leading of this Nation by executive order. This is not to break the rules of House and pass insult. It is just a reflection because, of course, all of these reciprocal tariffs were announced.
Mr. Speaker, I am just pulling up my note on these reciprocal tariffs because it was an executive office announcement to do reciprocal tariffs.
On April 2, a 25 percent tariff on all auto imports went into effect. Of course, I hail from Michigan. I am well-versed, alongside Mrs. Dingell, in the functionality and the drivers of our American auto industry. That largely comes from the fact that I was born in Metro Detroit, and I grew up around the car industry.
My grandfather came to Michigan by way of Buffalo to work in a Ford plant. He was a UAW member and raised three children and had a big family. He made a good life and got a good wage and moved to a bigger house in Warren.
Mr. Speaker, why I had booked the Special Order Hour last week was because my father was visiting. My father, Jim Stevens, James R. Stevens, of Shelby Township, he now resides in Shelby Township. He has always been a hybrid Macomb, Wayne, and Oakland Counties man.
My father, Jim Stevens, was visiting. It was the first time he had visited Washington since I was sworn in, in 2019. We had talked about this trip for a long time. I wanted my dad to come and be a part of Congress. He got here on Tuesday; and then, boom, the votes were closed for the week. They ended votes.
Dad didn't get to come to the committee hearings or watch the floor. I thought it would be neat to have him see me give an address for this length of time by watching in the gallery. Of course, he can always watch on C-SPAN; but I thought it would be nice to have him watch in the gallery.
I thought it would be nice to share a little bit about his life and his journey. I mentioned his father who worked for the Fords. That is how they call it back home. The Fords is a family business. My father was born January 3, 1945.
It would be interesting to look at what session of Congress was getting sworn in then during such a different time in this Nation's history. Yet it is history, and it is air that my father was breathing even as an infant. It was America at the beginning of 1945, when a war was still being waged around this world. The real threat of tyranny and some, rightfully--and I join in this--say evil was taking place.
America helped end a world war in Asia and in Europe. That war gave us the word ``Holocaust,'' the murder of over 6 million Jews whose names we can't in days even share because it is that many names.
My father grew up in this post-World War II industrial world order that was being led by the United States of America. So many remarkable things came about within our own country and around the world from American leadership.
Mr. Speaker, think about what we were able to do with the auto industry, that arsenal of democracy, that engine of our military might, the Rosies who filled in because the men were away, fighting and serving in battle. These are unbelievable and historic tales of bravery that we should continue to share for a very, very long time to come.
Of course, this period of time was also met with some social change, progress, and pushing. Not all the Rosies went back to the home. My mother's aunt, my great-aunt Ada, was in Cleveland. I guess you could say she was a Rosie, Mr. Speaker. She was in a factory. She was tough. She never married. She worked so hard, and they kept her on in that factory after the war ended.
I really believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is a history that was shared and has been shared, not my family's history, but, of course, for our Nation, it has been shared in so many brilliant and beautiful ways. Some people know about this movie ``Forest Gump.'' It kind of captures in a lot of beautiful ways this plight of the 20th century America.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am a millennial. I was born in 1983, not 40 years after the conclusion of World War II but almost. Of course, the millennials, as we were closing out the 1900s, really felt as though America was at the top of the world. We were unstoppable. We invented the internet. Our auto industry was booming. The sport utility vehicle, Oakland County, Michigan, being really one of the most wealthy, if not the wealthiest county in America, and that is to say that our auto industry really had continued into the late 1900s to propel the economic engine of this Nation.
It is a thing of beauty because it wasn't the haves and have-nots. People were making money, not just the executives. Of course, we have a very strong, vibrant, and incredible UAW, United Auto Workers union. At the end of the 1900s it was very large in number, very powerful, and very right to stand up for hardworking men and women like my grandfather.
So as we think about the 20th century and we look at where we are now, the quarter 21st century, I say this so much it might drive some people crazy, but it is important to realize where we are standing and what moment we are in because it is the mid-2020s.
It is a really exciting and inspiring time. I remember getting into Congress in the year 2019, and, of course, I was on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. We were recognizing in a committee hearing the 50-year anniversary of the Moon landing. Some of my colleagues were alive and remembered when we landed on the Moon. Of course, they remembered when they landed on the Moon. My father remembers it, and my mother does too, somewhat, that we sent people to the Moon.
My contribution to that committee hearing, Mr. Speaker, was reflecting on that history is so deeply important, but articulating the moonshot of the next 50 years remains our imperative. Of course, being the good Representative I am of the State of Michigan, I believed that the moonshot of the next 50 years, and I still do, is hailing from the place that I call home, the advancements in mobility, where are our auto industry is innovating, growing, and moving towards.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I came to Congress by way of an advanced manufacturing research lab, and I was working with a lot of incredible small manufacturers, mid-size manufacturers, and even large-scale manufacturers in this space that the acronym IIoT captures, Industrial Internet of Things. In short and simply, it is the digitization of our manufacturing process.
Now a lot of people are calling it artificial intelligence, how we design, produce, manufacture, and ship capital-intensive, large-scale equipment made of steel. Now, I happen to know enough about the auto industry and how complex and interconnected it is that in Michigan we have this rich, unbelievable concentration of suppliers. We call them suppliers. These are really unbelievable enterprises that put so much into making door panels, making interiors, and making sure that we have got the full sweep of mobility opportunities from, of course, the engines, and we have got companies like Allison Transmission that is working on electric engines. They are still, of course, doing the internal combustion engine, Mr. Speaker.
We have original equipment manufacturers who have been aggressive in ushering in their vision of a mobility future. It is no surprise for me to share in this House Chamber what we have heard from the chief executive officer of General Motors, Mary Barra, that 6 years ago she wanted to see a fully zero emission General Motors. I was surprised to hear the vision in some respects but also I wanted to recognize that she had a vision.
She came to the bipartisan delegation of Michigan and said such a thing, and they are working on implementing new mobility.
I haven't had a chance to ask her. Of course, I am not a board member of General Motors. I have not had a chance to ask her at the one-half decade mark where we are to becoming fully zero emission in the 2030s, 2030, but I know that they are selling more and more of these electric vehicles, as well as internal combustion vehicles.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I find this exciting and thrilling as a steward of Michigan and Michigan's economy, as a younger individual who had worked in a political atmosphere on the Presidential campaigns of 2008, and got to go work in the administration of Barack Obama in the Treasury Department. I was in the Treasury Department.
Mr. Speaker, I know we don't hail from the same party. Of course, you are sitting in the Speaker's chair. What was so remarkable about the start of the Obama Administration and the Treasury Department right there on East Executive Avenue is that it is basically a part of the White House campus. The Obama administration officials came in and were met by Bush administration officials. We tangoed. We worked together. We danced together on behalf of a nation in an economic recession. We called it a GR, capital G capital R, Great Recession this Nation was in.
A lot of unbelievable and painful things were happening, of course, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the housing industry was going kaput to say it lightly. There was a massive foreclosure crisis. There was a run on banks like in equity firms like Lehman Brothers. They had this whole Wall Street endeavor that the Bush administration alongside the House of Representatives had to engage in.
There was this hanging issue around our auto industry and the fact that the capital markets and the lack of sound healthcare policy in this Nation, our companies were shouldering every burden, not burden, but responsibility of healthcare. People need healthcare, Mr. Speaker, we know that.
Aging is real. I talk to my dad about it. I said: Dad, let's do the doctor checklist. He has got hearing, he has got throat, and he has got mobility, his physical mobility, and on and on and on. His mental faculties are incredible, yea for that, but there is a need for medical attention as people get older, and the UAW rightfully protects their retirees. We are proud of what they are able to do for the retirees.
However, the country pre-ACA, Affordable Care Act, ran into some severe challenges. Ford had gotten its loan before the recession hit, and General Motors and Chrysler hadn't done that. They were tragically and frighteningly staring bankruptcy in the face. So, Mr. Speaker, what I was able to do was, being the passionate 20-something-year-old I was for my State grappling with this Presidential election that I was a part of and saw go to victory, I thought: Should I go back to Michigan or should I maybe work in a car dealership or something?
It was not my degree, but I thought maybe I could help. Then I heard they were going to do an auto initiative, an auto rescue. So I put up my hand to work on that auto rescue. By fate and chance I met a man named Steve Rattner in the halls of President Barack Obama's transition office. I am nearly convinced, Mr. Speaker, that as he heard my thick Midwestern accent, he decided to bring me on as his Chief of Staff needing someone from Michigan who didn't have ethical conflicts with a managed industrial bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler. We didn't hire anyone in the auto industry. We didn't want to have conflicts. We brought together this amazing team. It didn't matter who voted for what, we just got the best talent in and put forward an initiative, an industrial initiative, the likes that this Nation had never seen.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, it was money, the taxpayer money out of the Troubled Asset Relief Program. GM, General Motors, left the stock market.
I reflected on the 15-year anniversary of this auto rescue last year in this Chamber during another one of these addresses.
Mr. Speaker, it was really quite remarkable because GM left the stock market. They did a new initial public offering, an IPO. It got back on the stock market. They repaid the government. The government actually made some money off of the investment that they made in the companies.
We had an old company. We had a brownfield initiative for some of the stuff that was going by the wayside. Of course, my friends at the UAW reminded me that too many plants have shuttered this century. In the year 2025, when you look at the last 25 years, Mr. Speaker, too many plants have shuttered. It is really quite outrageous, Mr. Speaker, to hold up this article from The Detroit News that was written on April 4 of this year, that a stunning number of battery factories are being canceled.
Why are factories being canceled in the year 2025, Mr. Speaker?
Are we supposed to call the Chinese Communist Party and ask them to go and get these batteries and start making these batteries?
Are we just not going to have batteries made in the United States of America?
Why would it be acceptable to have battery plants shutter in the United States of America?
This isn't an exercise of ego or id or personhood. This is about persons' lives. This is about how we manufacture and produce in the United States of America.
I don't like reading that factories are being closed, Mr. Speaker. I don't like reading another headline written by Patricia Cohen on April 3 that says that the trade war that we are in risks forfeiting America's economic primacy.
Now, this is just one article. There is another one by Oren Cass. He is the chief economist at American Compass. I guess that is a conservative think tank. That is what the printout says.
He writes a newsletter on Understanding America.
Mr. Cass says: Stop freaking out. Tariffs can still work.
I guess that is the debate that we are in.
What I don't like, though, Mr. Speaker, was the tariff proposal that was so aggressive and coming down at us so fast and hard. I value so much my relationship and the leadership of Shawn Fain at the UAW, the United Auto Workers union. I was looking at this and saying: Maybe we can finally start to get our fair share. Maybe we can have a little reciprocity. Maybe the industrial world order that we brought together in 1945 and beyond is a time that we, of course, need to honor, recognize, and appreciate, but for 2025, we do need to look at who is buying American cars and how we are setting the rules of the road.
I had the privilege as a Member of Congress last term to go to a NATO meeting. I was invited to a NATO meeting over in Portugal. It was very exciting to be with a bipartisan delegation of Members of Congress for a few days. It was during a recess period. I thought it was worthwhile to do it.
I was actually shocked that there were not American cars in Portugal. I thought, my goodness gracious, where are your Fords? Where are your General Motors? Where are your Chevys? Anything?
My goodness gracious, we boast and love making vehicles in Michigan and selling to the world. I do this program called Manufacturing Monday. There are hundreds of parts, components, that get made in any car. I visited hundreds of manufacturers, Mr. Speaker, and I mean, really, I go onto their factory floors. It is not a showboat thing. It is a geek-out.
It is really exciting to geek out with these makers and innovators. It really is an amazing thing to go to see this stuff in action. They are selling all over the world, and they are employing people in Michigan and all over our country. It is a really a delightful thing.
It is important to our economy. We want to keep doing that, and we want to sell our nameplates.
Jeep is a fantastic brand. I am not pushing, and I am not trying to sell cars on the House floor. I am just mentioning that we are not seeing a lot of them overseas, Mr. Speaker.
When we have this approach, what was called liberation day, and we will see what unfolds from it, where we have been grappling and frustrated and watching as Michiganders is this tariff policy on Canada. I have this other article here that someone sent me: ``Using Tariffs to Make Canada a State? It's Been Tried Before,'' by Joseph Thorndike.
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 21 minutes remaining.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read Thorndike's words. Again, I am not using a name. We are musing.
I am in a border State. We have a lot of Canadians who immigrate to the United States. They marry Michiganders. They live in our neighborhoods.
Some of their workers come in to work in our hospitals. We have these great nurses.
Of course, we have a phenomenal manufacturing partnership with Canada. We have a lot of shared memberships with the union. Remember, it is an international union, so the UAW has members in Canada. The trades have members in Canada, including the Steelworkers, who are very important to all of this as well and who know very much what good tariff policy could mean for them.
I support them in that, but we don't need to be bullying Canada to become an annexed State. We need to make sure that we have strengthened security and good trade.
When we hear, Mr. Speaker, oh, my goodness gracious, about blanket tariffs on our neighbors from the north, all aluminum imports face a 25 percent tariff, well, that is coming from Canada.
I am the co-chair of the Aluminum Caucus, Mr. Speaker. It is a bipartisan caucus. I have these relationships in the aluminum sector, and they are telling me that they have these smelters that American companies have in Canada that are making the aluminum.
I don't know if you have ever seen aluminum get made, but it is really like baking a cake, and steel and all of that. The steel, oh, my gosh, when I was working for the President in 2009 and '10, we spent time with the Steelworkers and the steelmaking process.
These smelters are $6 billion. It confuses me how we are going to get a $6 billion smelter in the United States of America. Maybe we should do that. It would be nice to do, but where are you going to get the $6 billion? You know, these Wall Street people are all upset about the market right now.
We had a really great industrial policy in '22, a bill I helped author, the CHIPS and Science Act, Mr. Speaker. It was a very bipartisan initiative, and it was money that we put out into the marketplace to say we will have chip manufacturing in the United States of America. It was a sizable amount of taxpayer dollars to say that we would have chip manufacturing, but what was even more incredible, Mr. Speaker, is that, yes, it was sizable dollars, but it was quadruple matched by the private sector, a public-private partnership.
The initiative actually paid for itself four times over by the conclusion of the previous President's term.
I think we need a very comprehensive industrial policy that matches the moment of time that we are in, Mr. Speaker. Of course, strategic tariffs that the previous President and the President before did have helped, but we are feeling the squeeze in Michigan, and it is news unfolding before our eyes.
Again, I reference the article here: ``A stunning number of electric vehicle, battery factories are being canceled.'' We just read about another Intel factory in Ohio.
I met with these remarkable people at the Laborers' International Union this morning, or just as it was heading into afternoon time, rather. I met with the Laborers' International Union, and the members from Michigan who hail from all over the State were sharing with me some of their concerns.
They were saying to me, Mr. Speaker, that there are projects that are going to shutter. There is a bridge in Bay City that has been demolished and has had concrete set. We have a good Congresswoman from Bay City who is aware of that project, of course. They are saying if the dollars get canceled, we are not going to have a bridge. They are not going to be able to complete it. It is an insult to their work. It is an insult to their labor.
Then, of course, Mr. Speaker, we have another concern of our laborers, which is an enterprise that I had mentioned, the largest polysilicon manufacturer in the country, actually the only one, and one of three in the world. It is this very remarkable enterprise called Hemlock. They received some tax credits from industrial policy legislation that we passed in the 117th session of the Congress.
This is so very essential to our country and our world's manufacturing prowess. I really, Mr. Speaker, do not want to go overseas for that polysilicon. I want to see the work of polysilicon manufacturing in the United States of America expand and grow. I would like to see it expand and grow.
What my friends at the Laborers' Union shared with me, Mr. Speaker, is that if we cancel the credits, if we squeeze out the money, the work will stop.
Why would we hand that gift to our competitor? I say this from this Chamber as one vote and one voice to just continue to push for sound and reasoned industrial policy. Not everything needs to be a reaction to who is in charge.
Mr. Speaker, today, I have put forward an announcement from my office about bills to lower costs, reintroducing four bills that I wrote last term in the Congress: the Healthy Affordable Housing Act that I have reintroduced with my colleague Congressman Ritchie Torres; the Fix Moldy Housing Act; the First Time Homeowner Savings Plan Act; and the Home Accessibility Tax Credit Act. These are all bills I just introduced today. Some of them had Republicans on them last term.
The Home Accessibility Tax Credit Act is a great bill, and I am proud to have Senator Angus King as my companion on this bill. It is a refundable tax credit to help seniors and Americans with disabilities, including our veterans, retrofit their homes to meet their accessibility needs.
In the United States of America, Mr. Speaker, we want everyone to succeed. We want everyone who can work to have access to a good job.
In 2023, Detroit reached its highest level of jobs in over 50 years, Mr. Speaker. People were moving into the city of Detroit. It was really something else to see that happen.
That is not to ignore the frustration and the pain of high costs. I am not here and not standing here, in part because the rules don't allow it, but it is appropriate to not play the blame game. It is important to play the solution game for the United States of America.
As somebody who served in a bipartisan way--yes, I was an appointee of the administration of the two-term President Barack Obama. I served in his first term on the U.S. auto rescue, the initiative responsible for saving General Motors and Chrysler and hundreds of thousands of Michigan jobs and very clearly saved millions of jobs across this great Nation.
It was really something else. I mean, they were saying don't let them liquidate. We didn't let them liquidate. We went forward, and we did the right thing.
I came into Congress and started the Democratic Manufacturing Working Group, became the co-chair of the Manufacturing Caucus, started the Women in STEM Caucus, became a co-chair of the Robotics Caucus and passed things like the American Manufacturing Leadership Act, making sure we had an Export-Import Bank that was reauthorized. We did that in the 116th session of the Congress so that we can export, so that we can sell American-made goods.
The question really is, Mr. Speaker, as we look out to the mid- century mark, waving maybe frantically good-bye as much as we want to cling to the great half-century of America in the 20th century, we know that competition is ripe, that we cannot rest. When you talk to autoworkers and auto executives, they know how ferocious that competition is with the Chinese Communist Party.
It is a competition, but they are a different system of government and business. Our preference is to say that we certainly would like to do business how we do business, but they are a different society. They somehow got into the WTO and didn't really adopt some of the ways that we do business.
We want to make sure that the economic might of the United States of America continues to lead the free world.
While this Chamber may be largely empty because we remain very busy in the Nation's Capital, and I do not expect my colleagues to listen to me deliver such an address, Mr. Speaker, I do
The idea that America should and must win and must continue to propel and to inspire as a vibrant, growing economy and democracy is what should win the day.
Mr. Speaker, in speaking from my humble perch as a Representative of the great State of Michigan, that is my contribution to the Halls of this Chamber this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of my Special Order hour.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Illinois?
Mr. Speaker, I take to the floor today to raise the alarm for the people of Illinois' Third Congressional District.
Today, I am standing here for the 197,569 people, including 94,806 children and 22,000 seniors, whose Medicaid is at risk of being taken from them.
I stand here for the 69,000 people in Illinois-03 who count on SNAP benefits and could be losing them.
I stand here for the 28,000 people who receive coverage under the Affordable Care Act and may see their average premium go up by $820 a year, a 40 percent increase.
Mr. Speaker, the working people of my district rely on Federal programs and services, and they also rely on the essential organizations in Illinois-03 that provide federally funded social programs and services.
Mr. Speaker, I stand for the 11 federally funded health centers with a presence in Illiois-03 that leverage $78,954,648 in Federal investments for 624,770 patients.
I also stand here in the people's House for CEDA, which provides LIHEAP assistance to 179,082 working people in Cook County to weather extreme temperatures.
I stand here for the Puerto Rican Cultural Center under the leadership of Jose, the AIDS Foundation, La Casa Norte, and so many in Illinois-03 serving organizations that meet the needs of our diverse constituents who are facing uncertainty about Federal funding in this precise moment.
My colleagues and I are standing here because my Republican colleagues have bowed down to the whims of an unelected billionaire and a wannabe dictator. The majority is stealing from the American people so that Republicans can enrich billionaire bosses and expand their wealth at the expense of our working families.
Consider that for a moment. The richest man in the world is demanding cuts in the services that working families rely on. The richest man in the world, who could be making contributions to end hunger globally, decides that we should be cutting program services for working families, many of which my colleagues will talk about today.
Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today in the people's House, I want to be very clear about something. I will not betray working families by supporting a budget that harms working families to make the rich richer. We have to stand up in this precise moment in the people's House.
Republicans must also stand up to their billionaire bosses and do what is right, what they were elected to do: represent their constituents. We must protect and defend the federally funded social programs and services that the American people rely on.
Mr. Speaker, I will yield to my colleagues who will share about the programs and services that their constituents rely on and that they were sent to Congress to defend.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I recognize Representative Ramirez for her leadership on this important issue.
I rise today not just as a Member of Congress, but as a healthcare practitioner. Like so many of my fellow healthcare workers, I became an occupational therapist to help people. Before entering public office, I spent over a decade working with seniors and children to help them achieve independent, full lives.
Last week, the Trump administration made it harder for our healthcare providers to deliver the services that Americans rely on by terminating 10,000 hardworking members of the Department of Health and Human Services workforce. Under this administration, a total of 20,000 HHS employees have been illegally fired, putting Americans at risk every day.
These cuts do nothing for the people in western New York or anywhere else across the country. They are a means of giving tax cuts to the ultrarich and powerful, those who never have to worry about access to reliable healthcare.
These cuts are more than numbers on a balance sheet. These are lives that hang in the balance. For western New York, this will make it harder for Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center or the University of Buffalo to advance their lifesaving work.
These cuts mean delayed treatments, denied cures, stolen hopes from patients battling cancer, Parkinson's, ALS, Alzheimer's, and so many other devastating diseases. I felt the pain and hope of patients, grandparents, mothers, fathers, and children who are counting on the next clinical breakthrough to survive. These cuts say to them: Your health doesn't matter. Your life doesn't matter.
President Trump, unelected billionaire Elon Musk, and Secretary Robert Kennedy are more concerned with cutting services and pushing an antiscience agenda than they are with supporting and improving our healthcare system. By walking away from practitioners and patients, the Trump administration is abdicating its duty to our most vulnerable and signaling to the world that the United States is no longer the global leader in scientific research.
As someone who spent years treating patients, I know that abandoning our scientists, our research institutions, our doctors and nurses, and, worst of all, our patients puts our entire community and country at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I urge this body, Democrats and Republicans, to stand up for our healthcare heroes, invest in breakthroughs that millions of lives are depending on, and restore the funding and workforce our Nation's healthcare system depends upon.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kennedy) for his comments.
Mr. Speaker, I have the opportunity and honor to serve with the gentleman on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Every day, I see the work that he does to uphold the work that is necessary to protect the benefits of our veterans. I am so grateful for the ways that the gentleman continues to show up for his constituents in New York and for the entire Nation. It is truly an honor to serve with the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, the Speaker saw constituents from every single State in the country come out to protest and rally. The Speaker saw children and saw people who are probably closer to 100 years of age walking through streets, going to the parks, and asking other Members of Congress: Have you forgotten about the people who sent you to Congress?
Mr. Speaker, I say as we are standing here in the House of Representatives that New York, Michigan, Texas, and Chicago have Members of Congress who are unwilling to accept the idea that we would slash the very same programs that we promised to protect for the American people.
Today, I am grateful that I get to be here with Members of Congress not just from New York, but also with a colleague of mine who continues to ring the alarm for the safety net programs that our constituents here and in Michigan need and deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the leadership of Congresswoman Ramirez, who has led with her own lived experiences and her compassion. She leads with compassion, which I think is sometimes missing here in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans are advancing, as we all know, a budget that includes $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid to pay for tax breaks for billionaires. These are folks who do not fully understand what it means to live paycheck to paycheck. Mr. Speaker, 60 percent of our residents in our country live paycheck to paycheck.
Just so we are clear, the $880 billion cut to Medicaid is the largest Medicaid cut in American history. There are 72 million people who rely on Medicaid for healthcare in our Nation, including 40 percent of people in Speaker Johnson's own district.
Mr. Speaker, for families, seniors, and people with disabilities who rely on Medicaid, it is the difference between life and death. Yet, right now, the future of Medicaid is under threat.
I have heard many of my Republican colleagues in this Chamber try to gaslight the American people and claim that the budget does not make cuts to Medicaid. Senator Hawley, as we know, just offered an amendment to the same legislation right now that came through this Chamber to strip the $880 billion in Medicaid cuts out of that bill.
It was voted down by Members of his own party. The amendment literally said: To strike the section related to reconciliation instructions to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives to cut $880 billion from Medicaid.
The Senator's Republican colleagues in the Senate voted it down, so let's be honest with the American people. If Republicans are going to cut their healthcare, be honest about it. Don't gaslight and try to pretend.
Those who rely on Medicaid aren't just a number. They are our neighbors. They are our friends. They are our families. They depend on Medicaid for health services, treatment, and medication that they simply cannot afford due to our broken healthcare system.
Make no mistake. Republicans want to give away trillions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, let's be honest, to the richest people in our Nation, like Elon Musk and all of President Trump's friends, and let children and seniors die from the lack of healthcare coverage.
As the chair of the Congressional Mamas' Caucus, I need to bring this to light because this is important when we talk about Medicaid.
Mr. Speaker, Black Maternal Health Week begins on April 11, and Michigan has one of the highest Black maternal mortality rates in our Nation. Medicaid plays a critical role in supporting maternal health, covering a significant portion of births in our country and providing access to healthcare for pregnant women and postpartum individuals, including prenatal care and postpartum services.
Black women, we know, are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than White women. This is absolutely unacceptable. We must address it at the Federal level. Yet, here we are, Mr. Speaker, because we have systems right in place and institutions have failed our folks, but here we are saying: We are also going to take away your healthcare coverage.
Cutting Medicaid, again, is going to be a life-or-death situation for our families, including birthing women. It is a result, of course, we know, of different broken systems.
Yet, at this moment, when we know we have a crisis in the mortality rate, we have a crisis of Black maternal health, and we have a crisis in our healthcare system, it is a broken system. It is sick care, not healthcare. Here we are watching, again, folks choose billionaires over the people who elected them.
We must raise our voices, and I am glad and so incredibly happy to be serving with my sister in service, Representative Ramirez. We must raise our voices again because we have to defeat this dangerous Republican budget. Again, our residents deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of Congresswoman Tlaib. The gentlewoman is absolutely right. Our constituents do, in fact, deserve better.
As I go back to the district and I look at the emails and the phone calls that are coming through, our constituents are asking: What are you doing to defend me? What are you doing to protect the programs that we depend on to stay alive? You need to do more.
One of the things that we have said in our townhalls, on the calls, on the emails as constituents come to D.C. demanding that we protect these critical programs is that we have to use every single opportunity--be in committee, be in the conversations we are having with colleagues, and every moment we can get to the House floor and talk about what is at stake in this precise moment.
We have to make sure that everyone hears we are doing everything we can to protect these critical programs because many of our constituents in this moment are feeling that they are being gaslighted by the very same people that they sent to Congress.
It is important to hear from the champions that are taking a stand. With us today is one of our newer Members of Congress. She is someone that yields from the great State of Texas where there are champions for justice who are fighting to protect Social Security, who are fighting to protect Medicaid, who are fighting to protect the very same programs that are critical and have made this country great.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and hosting this important Special Order hour on a topic that impacts many of my constituents in north Texas.
Since day one, the Trump administration has targeted essential social services that make government unreliable for all Americans: veterans, people with disabilities, seniors, and our children. All of these people and more rely on government to survive and all President Trump wants to do is cut, cut, and cut.
Let's call it what it is: It is a full on assault of the most essential lifelines millions of Americans count on, especially Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They are right in the crosshairs of this administration.
The Trump administration and Republicans in this House are pushing cuts to the programs that Texans rely on every day. These aren't just numbers in a budget; they are difference between stability and catastrophe for hundreds of thousands of my constituents.
In Texas alone, more than 4 million people rely on Medicaid for healthcare, including half of the children in our State. Let me remind you, this is a State of 32 million people. Half of the children in our State rely on Medicaid, one out of every two kids in Texas.
When Trump proposes gutting it, he is not just slashing spending, he is taking away critical healthcare from children, from seniors in nursing homes, and people with disabilities who depend on it to survive.
Today, in the Capitol, one of my dear friends is here visiting who runs a hospice company. They provide dignity of care to people at the end of their life. They provide necessary comfort for families as they are trying to deal with these situations. End of life care is the most expensive part of our healthcare system. Companies like hospice companies provide a necessary but much more affordable access to the end of life with dignity for families, and they rely on Medicaid. They rely on Medicare to stay in business to help families and so many people in need.
We still have to talk about Social Security. Over 4 million Texans, retirees, veterans, widows, and people with disabilities rely on Social Security to keep the lights on, keep food on the table, and pay their bills. It is not a luxury; it is a promise this country made to working people. If you pay in, you can retire with dignity, but Trump's budget says otherwise.
He is talking about entitlement reform. That is Washington speak for cuts. Cuts that would hit rural communities, communities of color, and low-income seniors the hardest.
Let me be crystal clear: Texas already ranks 43rd in the Nation in access to healthcare. It is a statistic I am not proud of from my State. We lead
Now, Trump and Republicans want to make it worse. It is cruel, it is reckless, and it is dead wrong.
This isn't about balancing a budget; it is about priorities. Donald Trump's priorities are tax breaks for his buddies while working families are told to tighten their belts. We should be expanding care, not slashing it. We should be protecting retirement security, not playing games with the futures of people who worked their entire lives.
Texas families are watching and we will not let this administration destroy the programs that protect our health, our security, and our basic dignity. I urge my colleagues, especially my Republican colleagues, you represent the same people I do, hardworking folks trying to make ends meet, trying to provide a life for their kids.
If you went to your townhalls, you would see people standing up, speaking out. They don't want this. The people in this country don't want this. My message to you is that Democrats are standing up. We are doing everything we can to protect you, your family, and your kids in the right for safety, justice, and your right to pursue the American Dream.
Mr. Speaker, Texans and all Americans deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Congresswoman for her remarks. She is absolutely right. Our constituents deserve better.
I will talk a little bit about what is at stake. You have heard already my colleagues talk about Medicaid. You have heard them talk about Social Security. You have heard them talk about how their constituents are living in constant fear.
I will talk to you about community health centers, which also are incorporated in the Medicaid funding that my colleagues, the Republicans, want to slash. I will start by saying to you unapologetically and very loudly that I believe to my core that healthcare is a human right.
No one should have to choose between getting the care they need, accessing their medication, or paying their mortgage, but I can tell you from personal experience growing up in a family where the insurance company they pay into constantly makes it difficult for them to be able to get healthcare. Knowing that my mom and dad have had to choose often, do they get the medication, or do they pay for the mortgage?
You see, my parents worked their lives in this country and my father today has Medicare and my mother up until a year ago had Medicaid because, unfortunately, the wages that she worked were not large enough, were not equitable enough. They weren't living wages, but the Medicaid system that we have that we know isn't working for everyone, that we should be expanding, not cutting, made it difficult for my mom to continue to get Medicaid.
I think about the challenges and the struggles that so many American people are living here. I will tell you that in the short tenure, we have seen that this administration has not talked about making Medicaid better. What they are talking about is cutting Medicaid. What they are talking about is announcing executive orders that target immigrants and the social service providers that work in strong immigrant communities. Immigrants that, by the way, pay into Medicaid that they never get.
What they are doing is undermining local governments and local agencies who know best what their communities need. You see, community health centers exist to serve an entire community, regardless of their income, regardless of insurance status, and regardless of immigration status. Many of the services they provide, like emergency care, like vaccinations, and public health outreach serve the public good. Providing these services broadly in our communities keep us all healthy.
Community health centers also make a profound economic impact on our communities, creating jobs, not taking jobs like this administration is doing, over 340,000 jobs and generating $118.4 billion in local economic activity.
Republicans have chosen to defund healthcare so that they can provide their billionaire bosses with more tax breaks. They want you to go without healthcare so the top 1 percent of Americans can get a $314,000 tax cut.
Let me say that again. They don't think that you deserve healthcare. They want to take your healthcare away, frankly, let you die, so that their billionaire bosses can get $314,000 in tax cuts. That is what they want to do. They claim to care for working people and our economy, but their actions show us just how terrible and in your face their hypocrisy really is.
There are no other words for those who knowingly would put tax benefits for the wealthiest Americans over the working families who depend on Medicaid for their basic healthcare.
In Illinois, 772,233 adults are enrolled in the ACA Medicaid Expansion. If Republicans cut Medicaid, these constituents would lose their healthcare. We have the obligation to remain defiant in our position that everyone independent of citizenship status, ZIP Code, or age has a right to a dignified, healthy life.
Now is the moment to remain united in our commitment to healthcare for all, courageous in our resistance, and undeterred in our fight against this administration's authoritarian agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I will talk to you about immigrants because apparently my colleagues here do everything they possibly can to vilify them every single day. It is almost as if they forgot that their grandparents also crossed borders and shores to get here, but let me say to you, you may have forgotten your roots, you may have forgotten that your parents or your grandparents or your great-grandparents were immigrants, but I haven't.
I am the proud daughter of Guatemalan immigrants, the wife of Boris, who until recently, was a DACA recipient, and I am the niece of a man who has contributed to this country and paid taxes for more than 30 years and put four boys through college.
This body considers, once again, a budget that leaves working people behind. I will for a moment talk about immigration and our economy because what these colleagues of mine, the Republicans, will tell you is that immigrants are taking from the American people. Immigrants are taking your jobs. Immigrants are taking your housing. They are taking, taking, taking, so let me clarify facts here.
The reality is that Republicans are pushing for a billionaire budget that gives $4.5 billion in tax breaks to the ultrawealthy like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, while cutting trillions of dollars in programs like Medicaid and SNAP. That is not immigrants doing that. That is Republicans doing that.
Republicans have the audacity to tell us that they are doing all these cuts because we are broke. Well, Mr. Speaker, like I said to Chairman Green in the Homeland Security Committee, we wouldn't be broke if the ultrawealthy would pay their fair share.
Fair taxing could fund a budget that centers working families. It could fix our tax system. It could create opportunity for policies that work for working people. Let me also say to you, immigration reform could unleash the full economic power of our immigrant communities to fully participate in a fair tax system.
Undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in State, local, and Federal taxes in 2022. Mr. Speaker, $96.7 billion is what they paid.
On top of that, undocumented immigrants pay an average rate of 5.27 percent in Federal taxes. That is a rate higher than most of the United States' wealthiest billionaires or megacorporations. Yet, while Republicans give another billion-dollar company another tax break, they are telling us that it is immigrants who are taking from the community and from the people. Well, that is a lie.
It is a lie because we understand that 23.6 percent of all entrepreneurs are immigrants. Some undocumented, some are legal permanent residents, and some are naturalized citizens. Mr. Speaker, $1.7 trillion in spending power is what immigrants bring to this economy.
Every time they tell you that immigrants are taking from us, let me be very clear: Immigrants contribute every single day.
As I am wrapping up, I will say that there are many reasons to be concerned, but it is also important to remember that there are reasons to celebrate. I will take a moment to recognize a reason to celebrate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 111th anniversary of the Village of Elmwood Park and to celebrate the 25,500 Illinois' Third Congressional District constituents who call this village home.
Elmwood Park is a wonderful place to live, to shop, and to do business. They have built unique intergovernmental and cross-sector partnerships, and I am proud that our commitment and collaboration with President Saviano, Village Manager Volpe, and Senators Durbin and Duckworth have secured $13.1 million for a transformative project that included grade crossing improvements to enhance resident safety in Elmwood Park.
I thank all the hardworking employees of the village whose public service enables residents to access critical services and programs. I remain committed to continuing to deliver the resources our communities need to improve public safety, create well-paying jobs, and expand economic opportunity for Elmwood Park and across Illinois' Third Congressional District.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Elmwood Park for these 111 years of community. I look forward to many more years of partnership and to continue to fight in the Halls of Congress for every constituent in my district.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Washington?
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my frustration and outrage with the Trump administration's reckless cuts to our Forest Service.
The workforce that takes care of our forests, harvests timber, and makes them resilient to wildfires is treasured in my State of Washington and, I would say, in the entire Western United States. Cuts to this workforce endanger my constituents, endanger millions of Americans, and put our forests at high risk of catastrophic wildfires.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Whitesides).
Mr. Speaker, my name is George Whitesides, and I represent California's 27th Congressional District.
Just 3 days after I was sworn in to Congress to serve my first term this year, wildfires broke out across southern California, forcing 200,000 people to evacuate, burning over 57,000 acres of land, damaging or destroying 18,000 homes, and taking the lives of 30 individuals.
Two weeks later, the Hughes fire erupted in my own district near Castaic, right near where this picture behind me was taken. It forced over 30,000 people to evacuate.
Compared to most, we were relatively lucky. Given wind conditions and the brave work of our firefighters, many of whom were employed by the U.S. Forest Service, the fire was quickly contained.
As southern California began to emerge from the devastation and focus on rebuilding, firefighters and other fire service workers with the U.S. Forest Service were abruptly terminated by the Trump administration. Days or weeks after saving our lives, they were left out to dry with no explanation.
One of these employees in my own district was Jasmin Dominguez, a GIS technician, who literally mapped out the fires as they spread. I brought Jasmin as my guest to the State of the Union where we talked about how difficult it would be for local fire chiefs to control the fires without the maps that she provided.
Now, we are preparing to go into another bad fire season. People are scared. If you look at the conditions on the ground in the American West, they are very concerning. Fire scientists are concerned. Firefighters are concerned. Between the January fires and the extreme dryness that we have experienced this winter, we are poised to experience earlier and more intense wildfires than before.
The worst thing that we could do for our communities that have already suffered so much is to reduce our capacity to fight and contain these fires when, not if, they occur.
The unconscionable and, frankly, offensive decision to terminate our Forest Service workers will make us less safe and more vulnerable to the natural disasters that we are guaranteed to experience.
The administration may claim that firefighters were exempt from their cuts, but we know this is not true. I am in constant communication with Federal wildfire community members, and here is what they tell me. Their grants have been frozen; existing agreements with the Federal Government, frozen; purchasing cards that they use to buy lifesaving equipment, frozen.
Hiring for fire season is often cyclical, meaning the Trump administration's earlier decision to freeze Federal hiring left even our local fire stations understaffed and unprepared for the fire season that has already started.
For the safety of the families and the individuals across all of our districts, and for the brave work that so many of these Forest Service employees do every day, we must speak out against these unfair terminations.
To every Forest Service worker who is laid off and for everyone preparing to undergo even more of these so-called reductions in workforce, know that we hear you, are with you, and are fighting for you.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo some of those comments because I am also in the West, in Washington State, and we are seeing the risk of catastrophic wildfires increasing every year.
Because all of this is being done under the guise of DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, let me be clear that we all want our tax dollars to be spent wisely.
Let me also be clear that the people in the Eighth District of Washington State think it is a super wise investment to invest in our Forest Service that will thin the forest, prevent catastrophic wildfires, and then fight catastrophic wildfires when they occur.
I would say, and my constituents would also say because we all choke on smoke every summer, that this is not a time to cut the Forest Service. In fact, it is a time to hire up at the Forest Service because we need them more than ever right now.
We need them for fighting fires as I discussed, for maintaining our forests, but also for supporting recreation, maintaining roads and trails, and producing timber that we all need for affordable housing, and for water restoration, watershed restoration, and more.
We have heard from the administration that firefighters were exempt from the cuts, but here is the thing: About 75 percent of the people who were cut had firefighting training. In fact, they may have had different titles, but they had something called red cards, which meant they were ready, firefighting trained, and they leapt into action whenever wildland firefighters needed their help to work side by side with them. They are really indispensable employees.
I also want to say that the people who we are losing, many of them have had years of experience. They choose to work for the Forest Service, for the Federal Government, because of their passion for taking care of our public lands. They are talented. They are critical. They are experienced. They
We are losing these really talented and critical staff through layoffs. Now, with the uncertainty, we are seeing early retirements. Frankly, given the disrespect and uncertainty, and now the impossible workload, can you imagine taking on all of the workload of your colleagues? Why would they stay? This is a very tough time to work for the Federal Government, especially in these dangerous jobs.
I am so fortunate to represent Washington's Eighth Congressional District. We have some of the most stunning nature in the country. In fact, we have the North Cascades National Park, Mount Rainier National Park, and two national forests stretching over 2 million acres. That is a fifth of the national forest, approximately 10 million acres in Washington State.
The U.S. Forest Service manages these public lands. We also have agreements and rely on relationships between Federal, State, and Tribal organizations and governments to manage our public land. When you cut Federal staffing, it really has ripple effects and leaves State, Tribal, and local governments lacking.
I want to express gratitude to U.S. Forest Service staff because they are also keeping our cherished public lands accessible for outdoor recreation.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know if you have ever been to Washington State. If you have, you will know that outdoor recreation is our pride and joy and is what sustains us. Those beautiful springs and summers, that is what sustains us when we have the rainy fall and winter.
We have already seen some of these outdoor trail accesses closed. In fact, there is one called the Denny Creek Trailhead that has experienced closures due to these staffing shortages, and that is only going to be worse as we head into outdoor recreation season.
Again, I have mentioned already the role that the Forest Service plays in wildfire mitigation; that is, thinning the forest, doing prescribed burns, doing the work that will prevent catastrophic wildfires.
In my district, Fire Chief David Walker says the Forest Service is the primary firefighting force for something called the Lake Wenatchee area. It is a favorite vacation spot for Washington families.
When you gut the Forest Service's fire response operation, that means you are taking away public safety. You are taking away safety from the people who are camping in the Lake Wenatchee area.
Mitigating risk in our forest has become ever more important with the increasing intensity of wildfires and the longer and longer wildfire season throughout the West.
In our State, we used to see wildfires mostly in the dry part of the State, east of the Cascade Mountains. Now, we see it in the entire State.
We have seen devastating fires in recent years. In fact, six of the highest risk fire sheds in the entire country are in my district.
Now is the time to strengthen our wildfire mitigation efforts, not kneecap the agency that is responsible for maintaining forest health. Firing support staff involved in wildfire response or mitigation does just as much harm as firing those that we think of as being on the front lines. They work together.
I also want to mention, imagine if you were a firefighter depending on that support staff to tell you when the weather conditions change, when the winds are shifting, because that matters for your own survival as you are fighting these fires. The support staff is every bit as important.
We are anticipating there to be further staffing cuts right before wildfire season kicks into gear, and these reduction-in-force plans are being made with little forethought and no agency engagement. We are seeing the arbitrary firing of probationary employees in every agency and then struggling to rehire them because they have cut HR.
This administration is not getting the message that every carpenter in my district knows: Measure twice, cut once. Figure out where it makes sense to make cuts before making those cuts. This is not efficiency. This is actually the opposite.
There are many roles that the Forest Service plays in research. They research how to fight pestilence that weakens our trees. They research which varieties of trees will survive best in fire. They also do research into which of these fire-prone areas is the most at risk so that they can treat those areas first.
I want to emphasize how important these Forest Service employees are to our district, the entire West, and, frankly, the entire country.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk a little bit in a moment about our Forest Service employees, some that I have spoken with since they were let go. First, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Carson) to speak about Forest Service cuts.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Schrier for her leadership, her friendship, and for being an advocate on behalf of her constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to demand answers on the recent funding and staff cuts to the U.S. Forest Service. Last week, I led a letter to the administration urging a reversal of these shortsighted decisions. We are still waiting for a response.
In my district, a wonderful, nonpartisan organization called Keep Indianapolis Beautiful has helped people and nature thrive. They work with local government, businesses, community groups, and schools to plant trees, clean up litter, and transform vacant lots into vibrant community green spaces.
Mr. Speaker, they work so hard. Their work makes our neighborhoods healthier, safer, and more connected, but this administration terminated grants that made this great work possible. It appears that DOGE has flagged words like ``equity'' and ``diversity'' in grant applications even when it is biodiversity and tree equity. That is just not bureaucratic overreach, it is absurd.
Tree equity is the idea that every neighborhood deserves trees. Without them, underserved areas become heat islands--trapping heat, raising energy bills, and degrading quality of life. This is not theory. It is science.
Investing in greener, healthier neighborhoods benefits Hoosiers and Americans. These cuts undermine that very goal.
I urge the USDA to reverse its course, and I call on our colleagues to join us in demanding the restoration of these critical investments in our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you something about the town of Roslyn in my district. It is a small town, completely surrounded by forest, and this forest is at high risk for catastrophic wildfire. In fact, it was incredibly important to the residents of the town not only to firewise their own homes but to treat the forest around the city to protect it.
I actually got to go out with nonprofits and Forest Service employees, use that drip torch myself and participate in prescribed fires in order to work to make sure that this area would not go up in flames and threaten the entire city. It is this sort of work that some of the employees in my district who were fired were doing. They were protecting homes and protecting lives. Then, after years in the Service, they were let go.
I even have constituents, a husband and wife who both worked for the U.S. Forest Service. They were both let go. They both did that work and trail maintenance. They also protected people during snow season in snow parks. These are year-round, family-sustaining jobs, and these are people without whom we all suffer.
There is another worker from my district who was fired who was actually working on harvesting timber. That timber is then sold and actually makes money for the Federal Government, but those workers were let go.
I mean, that is not efficiency. It is definitely not saving taxpayer money. It is really beyond foolish, and it is emblematic of what this administration and Elon Musk have been doing. This is not government efficiency. It actually hampers the ability for the Forest Service to be efficient and to fulfill its mission.
Taking a hatchet to these Federal agencies across the board, labeling probationary employees as if they are in
This has disproportionately hit Washington State. I will continue fighting for the employees in my district, for the people in my district, for Washington State to protect our forests, to fight these cuts, and to protect the U.S. Forest Service employees who have dedicated their lives to public service.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Min).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the Trump administration to consider reversing its reckless and dangerous terminations of Forest Service employees.
I represent an area in Orange County that is prone to the same types of wildfire risks that we saw devastate Los Angeles not too long ago. We are about a month or two away from fire season. We have had a number of fires similar, but smaller in scope, to the one that just hit Los Angeles due to the Santa Ana winds that come through our area in southern California every year and also due to drier conditions because of climate change and droughts. We know that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and so we need to have these types of resources in place.
As wildfires grow more and more intense, as the risks of wildfire become more and more ubiquitous, our firefighters are tired. They are understaffed, underresourced, and underpaid. We need more funding to protect our communities from megafires. Instead, this administration is choosing to strip our key first responders in the U.S. Forest Service of resources that make millions of Americans safer, including the ones I represent in Orange County.
Let's be clear, if we are looking for efficiency, this is the opposite of efficiency. There is nothing efficient about firing essential public safety officials right before fire season. These are the people we deploy to try to clear the brush. They are the first responders who alert our fire departments of early onset wildfires before they become deadly multibillion-dollar disasters. That is why we rehired so many of the very same people that DOGE tried to fire in the first place due to the inefficiency, the gross incompetence of Elon Musk and the people who are working with him.
This administration is also lying about retaining employees to help fight fires on the ground. Around 75 percent of those who were let go had firefighting experience, and now we are having to rehire some of them. This is what happens when you have 21-year-old hackers named ``Big Balls'' deciding how to cut our agencies as opposed to experts who know what they are doing. The incompetence of DOGE and Elon Musk is exposing Californians and millions of people around the country to unprecedented danger. We have to do something about it before it is too late.
I urge Congress to intervene, reverse these cuts, and stop this administration from putting more Americans in harm's way.
Mr. Speaker, we have all talked about thinning forests, making them more resilient. We talked about the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
We passed a big infrastructure bill a couple years ago, and part of that was not just protecting roads and bridges. It was also protecting our natural infrastructure because of its connection with our urban areas and the wildland-urban interface and more. That involved more management of our forests, more thinning of our forests. It required more hiring up of Forest Service staff, which really emphasizes the point my colleagues have made about how this is doing the exact opposite.
I wanted to connect a couple other dots for you, just to really bring home this point. President Trump promised all along the campaign trail that he was going to bring down costs for the American people. These are costs at the grocery store, costs everywhere really.
We could talk about tariffs, but what I really want to focus on, which is a big issue in my district and my State, is the cost of housing. Young people today cannot afford to buy a house. That means they are going to struggle to build their nest egg for retirement.
One of the ways to bring down the cost of housing is to use that 8- inch diameter or smaller timber that the Forest Service brings out of those national forests, mill those, turn it into cross-laminated timber, mass produce walls, roofs, and the building materials you need to build houses quickly and cheaply.
You can do rezoning, permitting for land to use for housing, and then you can build houses quickly, starter houses, houses to just help young people get their piece of America, their safeguard for their retirement.
However, this is doing the opposite. If we are not bringing the wood out of our forests, like the Forest Service employee I just told you about who lost her job, then we don't have that cross-laminated timber.
What is happening now, we are going to rely on Canada for timber at, what, a 25 percent surcharge because of these tariffs? This is doing the opposite. It is not bringing costs down for American families. It is driving costs up to the tune of close to $4,000 per family across this country. This is damaging. Then you add on what is happening in the Forest Service, and it just drives up the cost of housing.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I first just extend my gratitude to the people who step up to serve our country, who work for the U.S. Forest Service, who protect our forests, protect our homes, protect us from choking on smoke all summer long, and now stretching into other seasons. I emphasize that it is important to use tax dollars wisely and to have an efficient government, but sometimes that means hiring up instead of firing. Certainly, indiscriminate firing is crazy, wrongheaded, and reckless. I once again object to these indiscriminate cuts, and I yield back the balance of my time.
