Joe Neguse

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I hope he does. I suspect the answer is ``no.'' I suspect that Mr. Langworthy is here alone and that he will be the only Republican who has been tasked with arguing in favor of this really important commemorative resolution that we are all so eager to vote on. Mr. Speaker, in any event, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to adopt the Senate amendment to H.R. 7417, the bipartisan compromise bill that the Senate unanimously passed twice now--twice--to fund the law-abiding agencies within DHS. Mr. Speaker, this is the deal. You know it. I know it. At the end of the day, the compromise legislation that the Senate passed twice was deprived of a vote on this floor by Republicans. Not a single Senator objected to this bill, twice. The Republican Senate majority leadership authored the motion, but House Republican leadership refuses to take it up. As a result, it is perpetuating the shutdown of DHS by not putting that deal on the floor. Members who want to end the shutdown ought to join us in defeating the previous question to put this bipartisan compromise on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, I co-chair the Bipartisan Wildfire Caucus. I have worked with my Republican colleagues on a number of wildfire resiliency and forest management bills, proposals, and securing funding. I will not be lectured by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as they work to defund the Forest Service, literally, about wildfire resiliency and prescribed burns. There is no question that, at least with respect to the FIRE Act--I understand we are debating multiple bills with respect to the Clean Air Act, but in terms of the FIRE Act, Mr. Evans' bill, it does nothing. I mean, existing processes within the EPA provide for precisely the type of relief that he is seeking in this bill. The bill is, again, completely unnecessary. It is also not going anywhere. We, of course, know that to be the case. In any event, I digress. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and thank her for her leadership, I might just say, Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague from New York wax very poetically about the importance of the big or not the Big Beautiful Bill Act--whatever they are calling it now--the working families bill or something like that that they have come up with. There are 218 Republicans in the House of Representatives, give or take. I presume, given the importance of this commemorative resolution, that there perhaps might be some colleagues who are going to join my colleague from New York to talk on this bill? Mr. Speaker, might I ask you to pose that question to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy)? Does he anticipate any colleagues coming to the floor or just him?

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, a couple of points. First, again, we have heard ad nauseam about the various ways, in the view of my colleagues, that the bill that they passed last year has benefited the American public. I disagree. My constituents disagree, but we are not debating that bill today. We are debating--for those who might be watching this, I encourage everybody to look it up--H. Res. 1156. It is a two-page resolution. It is not particularly long. This resolution does nothing, achieves nothing, and changes nothing. It is a commemorative resolution honoring a law that they passed last year. It is a waste of time. What are we doing? Seriously. This is how the Republican majority chooses to spend its time? I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do next week? Are you going to introduce a different commemorative resolution that honors maybe this resolution that passes today? Maybe that is what we should count on, I guess. If this resolution passes today, Mr. Langworthy and I will debate next week a second resolution that honors this resolution. Give me a break. There are better ways for the House of Representatives to spend its time. These are serious issues. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as you know, at the end of March, last month, Speaker Johnson gaveled out this Chamber and sent Members of Congress home for a 2-week recess. He did so despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has been shut down for 60 days and counting, despite the fact that President Trump had made a reckless and unlawful declaration of war without congressional authorization, despite soaring gas prices and the ongoing cost-of-living crisis stretching from New York, the home of my distinguished colleague, to Colorado, despite the heat, the drought, and the wildfire records being shattered in the Western United States. Despite all of that, Speaker Johnson made the decision to gavel the House out of session and send everybody home. Now, we are back. The 2-week recess has concluded. What has the Republican majority decided is the most pressing challenge and issue for this august body to debate? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker. Apparently, it is a resolution commemorating a bill that Republicans passed last year. That is what we are here to debate. Republicans control the floor. They could put a bill on the floor to address cost-of-living issues. They could put a bill on the floor to address soaring gas prices. They could put a bill on the floor to address rising healthcare costs. Instead, we are here to debate a commemorative resolution. It is absurd. I have, over the course of the 7 years that I have had the privilege of serving in the United States House, never seen something quite like this. It doesn't really take a resolution, Mr. Speaker, for them to extol what they believe to be the benefits of the bill that they passed last year, the tax bill, which we will talk about today. My point, Mr. Speaker, is that this resolution is wholly unnecessary. There are better ways to spend our time. I heard the gentleman from New York's long description of the many reasons why that particular resolution that I referenced merits this body's passage. What I found interesting is that over the last 12 months that I have come down here to the House floor, I have heard Republicans use the same refrain in describing this bill: the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It is in the law. For a year, I have heard nothing but tweets, Truth Social posts, and floor speeches extolling the virtues of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. What is fascinating is that I didn't hear those four words this morning. I suspect I am not going to hear them the rest of today because Republicans spent some time and have come up with a new name--a new name, a rebrand. This bill that President Trump signed into law, which gave tax cuts to the richest Americans among us, is so unpopular that Republicans decided that they had to change the name. I hate to break it to you, but I don't think the rebrand, Mr. Speaker, is going to work. I don't think the name is what the American people were frustrated by. What they are frustrated by is a bill that kicked off 15 million Americans from their healthcare, a bill that amounted to the largest cut in SNAP in the history of our country, a bill that added $5 trillion over the next decade to the Federal debt. That is what they are frustrated about. They can call this bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act--what is the name now? Maybe the gentleman from New York will indulge me. The working families tax cut, that is what they are calling it now. I suspect, in a few months, they will change the name again because it is not going to change the unpopularity of their policies. I know this isn't the only resolution that we are debating today, as the gentleman from New York mentioned at great length. We are going to consider three bills from the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which seek to amend the Clean Air Act in an effort to scale back regulations that protect air quality from pollutants and polluting industries. There is no debate that these policies could have wide-ranging implications that would allow large swathes of the United States to be exempt from various rules under the Clean Air Act. I don't, to be candid, Mr. Speaker, really follow the argument that my friend from New York is making. As I understand it, what he is saying is that there are wide swathes of the country, including in his home State--by the way, this applies to my home State as well--where you have pollution that exceeds the standards that have been set by regulators at the national level. That pollution is causing asthma and respiratory diseases in children. The solution that they propose is to allow communities that are experiencing this kind of pollution to essentially exempt foreign sources of pollution from those standards so that they don't have to do anything about it. That is their solution. The air quality is not going to get any better. There will be no prophylactic steps taken by those communities. It is just a way for those communities to no longer have to do anything about pollution. It is absurd, and the American people know it. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say--and I imagine we will have a robust debate about the three bills and the resolution that I referenced. Fundamentally, I suppose if I were to conclude with one overriding sentiment, it is that I am simply asking my Republican colleagues to get serious. There are a lot of challenges facing the country. It is a difficult time for the families that I represent in northern Colorado and in western Colorado. Times are tough. This House, I believe, could rise to the occasion and actually work together to get some things done for the American people, for the constituents that we all serve. This is not that. Spare us the commemorative resolutions honoring bills that you all have passed. Let's just skip those, and let's get back to doing the business that the American people expect us to do. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. If a handful of Republicans--I am not talking about 30 or 20 or 10--if three vote to defeat the previous question, then we can take up the Senate bill tonight, and TSA agents will be paid. It is simple. It is time for our Republican colleagues to do the right thing and defeat this bill.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, 237 years ago, one of our Founding Fathers, John Adams, laid bare his greatest fear for our country, which is that in every assembly, Congresses like this one, Members would gain influence not by sense, but by noise; not by greatness, but by meanness; not by learning, but by ignorance. Why am I quoting John Adams at 10:30 p.m. on a Friday night? It is because this debate, the Judiciary chairman's remarks, are emblematic of the reality, the cold, hard truth that John Adams' fears proved prescient. All we hear is noise from the other side. It is the kind of noise that expects the American people to believe that a bill that passed unanimously in the United States Senate somehow defunds the police. It is the kind of noise that expects the American people to believe that every conservative Republican U.S. Senator passed a bill last night that defunds the police. That is their argument. The bill that the Senate passed, every conservative Senator and every liberal one came to a consensus that the stalemate needed to end, that TSA agents needed to be paid, and that FEMA needed to be funded. They passed that bill on a unanimous basis. The only reason we are not considering it is because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been captured by the far-right wing of their party. It is shameful. We have an opportunity tonight to perhaps rise to the occasion and prove John Adams wrong.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for her incredible leadership during such tumultuous times. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak. I was watching this debate unfold from my office in Rayburn and could not resist the temptation to come down to the floor to call out the clear intellectual dishonesty that we have heard for the better part of the last hour from my Republican colleagues. Spare us these crocodile tears. Let me read you two headlines, Mr. Speaker: ``[Ted] Cruz proposes splitting ICE from Homeland Security funding bill to end airport chaos.'' Another headline: ``Republican Senator Says Trump Killed Bipartisan Deal to Pay TSA workers `by the End of the Week.' '' Mr. Speaker, you have multiple Republican Senators saying what we all know to be true, which is that Republicans refuse to come to the table and pass a bill that is sitting at the Clerk's desk that the ranking member has introduced to pay TSA workers, to pay folks at FEMA, and to ensure that public servants working on cybersecurity and at the Coast Guard are fully compensated. We could do that today. Republicans refuse to do so. That is not me talking. That is Ted Cruz talking. That is Senator John Kennedy talking. Every day, another Republican concedes to the reality that has befallen all of us. I would implore my colleagues that if they truly care about ending this crisis at our airports, pass our bill to fund TSA. Do that today.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, last night, in the dead of night, the FCC and the Department of Justice did something unprecedented. They approved a merger that would create the Nation's largest local television station operator. Nexstar Media Group's $6.2 billion acquisition of Tegna would make it the largest local television station owner in the United States: 265 stations across 44 States, reaching 80 percent of American households. Why did they approve it? Simple reason: Because Donald Trump wanted them to. The deal is outrageous. It is devastating for local news, devastating for consumers, devastating for freedom of the press, but perhaps most problematic of all, Mr. Speaker, it is unlawful. The merger and the decision to approve it violates the law. By the way, this isn't complicated. It is simple. In 2004, Congress created a very specific 39 percent national audience limitation. That is in the law. It is not ambiguous. It is not nebulous. It is clear- cut, and this merger violates it. Let me read, Mr. Speaker, the dissent from one of the FCC commissioners. I hope every Member of this body reads it in full. ``The order is wrong on the law, wrong on the policy, and the process by which it was issued is indefensible. ``The Commission does not have the authority to raise or waive the 39 percent national audience reach limitation. Simply put: The national audience reach limitation is a statutory requirement, and only Congress has the authority to raise it.'' It is clear-cut, simple. We cannot allow this debasement of the FCC's processes to continue. Mr. Speaker, I have a solution: Let's rein in this lawless agency through the appropriations process. That is exactly what I intend to propose. I hope my colleagues will join me.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, before I was first sworn in to the United States Congress, my predecessor gave me a great piece of advice. He told me that the most important thing to do as I was getting started was to build a great team. I am glad I took his advice. The first person that I hired when I became a Member of Congress, to help build the team and to ultimately help lead it, was Sally Anderson. I rise today 7\1/2\ years later to thank her for her selfless, tireless, and dedicated service--her service to the people of Colorado's Second District, her service to the people of Colorado, and her service to our country. Sally first served as my district director and later became my Colorado chief of staff. Throughout her tenure, she worked incredibly hard each and every day to serve the citizens of our district. One can imagine the various challenges that our communities face from year to year. She faced each of those challenges with empathy, with compassion, and with unwavering determination. Historic wildfires, terrible flash floods, a devastating mass shooting, emergency after emergency, crisis after crisis, Sally was often the first call that I would make when grappling with how to solve a challenge, address an emergency in my district, and to do the work that we are solemnly charged with doing. She joined me at funerals, memorials, and remembrances. She played a pivotal role in the development of legislation here in Washington, D.C. I could spend hours, Madam Speaker, regaling you with the stories of the constituents' lives that she shaped, the casework that she supervised, and the countless examples of her kindness, leaving an indelible impression in the hearts and minds of the people I represent from Boulder to Fort Collins, from Vail to Steamboat Springs, and every corner in between. Sally was also a leader here in Washington. She was a mentor to district directors across the country as part of our district directors' service program. I have heard countless stories from my colleagues who have told me from their district directors of their experience, when they have relied on her counsel and advice when faced with a challenge or crisis. Perhaps most importantly, above all else, her professionalism and the ways in which she approached her job--selfless, thankless, and always available to help a constituent in need--in my view, it helped restore some trust in our government, which is so desperately needed now more than ever. Put simply, the Second District and our office will miss her. I wish her well and am so excited for her next chapter. On behalf of the people of the Second District, I thank Sally for her service. Nexstar Acquisition of Tegna

Mr. NEGUSE

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

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. ``U.S. Manufacturing Is in Retreat and Trump's Tariffs Aren't Helping,'' February 2, 2026, headline, The Wall Street Journal. Apparently, The Wall Street Journal has Trump derangement syndrome, too, according to my colleague from New York. American consumers must also. Everyone apparently has it except for House Republicans. By the way, my Republican colleagues talk enough about Joe Biden, one would be forgiven for thinking they miss him. As I said, noun, verb, ``Joe Biden,'' effectively the answer and retort on my colleague's part to every question. The reality is that my Republican colleagues, as has been displayed and demonstrated time and time again, work tragically for one person, and that person is Donald Trump. Lest anyone doubt that, let's see if a few of them will have the audacity, the courage, to vote against the rule today. I will say, it bears repeating. I have quoted a lot of Don Bacon on the floor today. If he is watching, I hope he will forgive me in advance. I will read again this tweet, this post on X, from John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News, who quoted Mr. Bacon: ``It will be the fourth time this rule vote putting a gag on tariff debates has been done. I don't think tariffs are good for the economy, manufacturing jobs, and the ag industry. American consumers pay the tariffs and thus it is a big tax. I support giving these authorities back to Congress.'' That is from Republican U.S. Congressman Don Bacon, so spare us the stale and tired attacks about Trump derangement syndrome. These are your colleagues saying it, not me. My colleagues ought to do the right thing: vote against this rule so that we can have an up-or-down vote on the disastrous Trump tariffs that are inflicting pain on the people who I represent in the great State of Colorado and across the country. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to respond to my colleague from New York because, again, I think this rule is largely a smokescreen to just avoid a discussion on the President's reckless tariff policies. However, insofar as my colleague is obsessed with cutting taxes on tasers, I suppose I am compelled to respond to simply say that what was just stated with respect to violent felons not being able to access tasers by virtue of this legislation, that is untrue. It is just untrue. Clearly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are seeking to remove these particular weapons from the definition of firearm under Federal law, and as a result, the various protections and safeguards that exist under Federal law. They can make the argument that in certain States there may be protections. That is not true of every State. In any event, the larger question that every American who is watching C-SPAN now ought to ask themselves is: Why is the U.S. House of Representatives spending so much time on debating cutting taxes for tasers? How did that manage to become the top priority of the House Republicans in Washington, D.C.? Inquiring minds would like to know. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), who is the distinguished Democratic leader of the House of Representatives.

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

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

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, I am not going to dispute my colleague from Wisconsin's sentiment here. If people are looking to not pay taxes on tasers, he has them covered. The Republican Conference has them covered. If people are struggling to pay for their groceries or their rent, they are out of luck as far as the House Republican Conference is concerned. Taxes on tasers, don't worry. They have a plan for that. They are working really hard to solve that existential challenge facing the country as we speak. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to strike section 4, which would stop an attempt by Republican leadership to block the House from taking up-or-down votes on President Trump's disastrous tariff policies through the end of July. As the country knows, since March of last year, Speaker Johnson and the Republican majority have blocked up-or-down votes on these policies. Our view is that these policies have been a disaster for the American people, and everyone knows it. We all remember, with great fanfare, President Trump announcing liberation day. The only liberation that any of our constituents have felt is the money departing from their wallets as this President increases prices on everyday consumers. It is wrong, and the Congress has a constitutional duty and responsibility to act. We know that these tariffs have cost the American people trillions of dollars. We know that according to the Joint Economic Committee, the average American family now pays an extra $1,625 in basic expenses thanks to the economic policies of this administration. The question is why are Republicans hiding from an up-or-down vote on these tariff policies? In the Senate, multiple votes have been held on these policies. Joint resolutions to terminate the tariffs have been sent to the House, to the Clerk here on a bipartisan basis from the United States Senate four different times. But Republicans, four different times, have done the opposite. Republicans have delayed votes on these tariffs, essentially surrendering one of Congress' main functions to one man, one man in the White House. During the September vote, several Republicans were apparently so frustrated by the process that they actually held out for about 45 minutes before they, of course, did what we all expect them to do: fold and strike a deal. One of them--and I will quote from one of my Republican colleagues. One of the temporary holdouts said that under the Constitution, the power to impose tariffs is a congressional power and needs to be restored to Congress. Apparently, he switched his vote after issuing that statement because he got a commitment from the Speaker that this House would only block votes on tariffs until the end of January. Well, here we are back again with the Republican Conference springing into action to do Donald Trump's bidding. He says: ``Jump.'' Our colleagues say: ``How high?'' Well, not all of our colleagues say that. Maybe one of one or two of them, as I said, may show the courage tonight to vote their conscience. Republicans are trying to ram through yet another rule to hide from taking up-or-down votes this time until the end of July. It is outrageous, outrageous, and it is why we are offering this amendment. Before yielding to the distinguished ranking member who has been a leader in this regard, I want to quote my colleague Tom Massie from Kentucky, a Republican, who I think said it best. ``Why haven't we voted on tariffs in the House of Representatives?'' This is a Republican who said this. ``Because Speaker Johnson is using Rules Committee Resolutions, consummated by majority votes of the whole House, to declare that `a day is not a day' in order to AVOID THE U.S. LAW that requires Congress to vote.'' These are Republican Members of Congress, Tom Massie, Don Bacon, all saying what we know to be true, which is that the House is abdicating its duty. I would encourage my colleagues, those of whom may find some semblance of backbone, to defeat the previous question, and we can finally have an up-or-down vote in this body on whether to terminate President Trump's disastrous tariffs starting this week with Canada, my colleague from New York's neighbor to the north. Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to include the text of my amendment in the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, whenever I have an opportunity to listen to one of my colleagues' speeches in this august body, I can always count on them to do three things: to say a noun, a verb, and ``Joe Biden.'' My colleague from New York does not disappoint with this myopic obsession that they have with Joe Biden. Facts are facts. The price of beef has risen 16.4 percent since last year. The price of coffee is up 19.8 percent. The price of lettuce is up 7.3 percent. Frozen fish is up 8.6 percent. In total, families paid $310 more for groceries during President Trump's first year in office compared to 2024, so spare us these ruminations about Joe Biden. If they want to get serious about doing something about the cost crisis in our country, making life more affordable for Americans, there is an easy way to do it: Don't sneak in procedural roadblocks to considering tariff policies by the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene), who has been a principled leader on this issue with respect to tariffs.

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

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I listened to every word of my colleague from New York's very long speech regarding the bills that the House is considering today. I might perhaps offer a different picture that I think the American people ought to consider. I think, as you know, Mr. Speaker, last month the U.S. economy shed over 100,000 jobs--100,000. It was the worst month with respect to job losses since the Great Recession in 2009. Prices are going up across the board. Everything is getting more expensive. Orange juice is more expensive. Ground beef is more expensive. Countless Americans across our country are struggling. Last year, we experienced a 46 percent jump in farm-related bankruptcies. Rural America is struggling under this President's reckless policies. Americans across the country are struggling economically because of House Republicans' reckless policies. For all those who wonder whether politicians in Washington might offer a solution to what ails our country economically, have no fear. House Republicans have come up with an answer. This week, they are focused on what really matters to the American people: Cutting taxes for tasers and making it easier for multinational tech companies, monopolies, to build undersea cables through marine sanctuaries. Those are the bills that we are considering today on the floor. That is their answer to the economic crisis that has befallen the people of our great country. It is absurd. It is absurd. It begs the question: Why? Why would House Republicans choose this course, again, given all of the challenges that I know that their constituents face, as mine do? Unfortunately, it is a reflection of the core values of just too many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who invariably, incessantly, and inherently have a predisposition to favor the ultrarich and the biggest corporations on planet Earth. Anyone who doubts it should consider the bills that we are debating today. I have to tell you that I do a lot of townhalls in my district. I represent the great State of Colorado. I know the Speaker, being from Nevada, knows my State quite well. I represent a large district in western Colorado and northern Colorado. It is bigger than eight States, with no offense to my colleagues from New Jersey, Maryland, or Rhode Island. It is a huge district, which means that I am on the road a lot. I do a lot of townhalls. A lot of issues come up at these townhalls. There are a lot of obstacles that Coloradans and Americans are facing that they would like to see their elected leaders help to solve. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the one topic that has never come up at a single townhall that I have held in my career: undersea cables. It just hasn't come up. Maybe my colleague in New York has a different experience. I don't know. I don't know if he hosts townhalls. I would encourage him to do it. Maybe undersea fiber optic cables are a big deal in his district. I can tell you that they are not in mine. My constituents aren't really concerned with slashing permitting fees so that the largest technology companies on planet Earth can build fiber optic cables through marine animal sanctuaries. That just isn't something that they are spending a lot of time thinking about. Who could blame them given all of the concerns that they have in light of the economic conditions that they are experiencing by virtue of this administration's cruel policies that the House Republican Conference has abetted at every turn. Mr. Speaker, one could ask, as I suspect you would: What is the gentleman from Colorado's suggestion? Lucky for you, Mr. Speaker, I have one, because we know that one of the reasons that prices are going up across the board in the United States are tariffs. It is this President's reckless policies with respect to tariffs. We have some solutions in that regard. They are ways that Congress can finally stop abdicating its authority and exercise its powers with respect to tariffs. I think the Speaker knows that because Speaker Johnson decided to tuck into the rule that we are considering today a measure that would prevent the House from considering any changes to the President's tariff policies for yet another 6 months. I am going to read you a quote: ``It will be the fourth time this rule vote putting a gag on tariff debates has been done. I don't think tariffs are good for the economy, manufacturing jobs, and ag industry. American consumers pay the tariffs and thus it is a big tax. I support giving these authorities back to Congress.'' These aren't my words. These are Republican Congressman Don Bacon's words, your colleague, who agrees that what Speaker Johnson is trying to do is to, yet again, gag the United States Congress. To Mr. Bacon, I say: Thank you for your honesty. To the rest of my colleagues, I say: Where is your backbone? Where is your spine? Stand up for the Constitution, as your colleague is doing. Stand up for the House of Representatives. Stand up for your constituents. Shameful, Mr. Speaker. I am hopeful that perhaps that political courage that Mr. Bacon is showing will be contagious. Maybe a few more of my colleagues will join him. In any event, I know that we have a lot of speakers who are eager to talk on this subject. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to sound an alarm, to sound an alarm about something dangerous and dark and pernicious that is happening inside our government. I recognize there are only a handful of my colleagues in the Chamber to hear that alarm and a few folks in the gallery, but I pray that Americans writ large will hear it. George Orwell in his famous book ``1984'' wrote of a time when ``The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.'' His warning proved pressing because today the Trump administration asks the American people to ignore what they see with their own eyes and what they hear with their own ears, which is the complete corruption of their government from the inside out. The Trump administration's pay-to-play schemes are literally ripping off hardworking American taxpayers as we speak. We see the evidence everywhere: A $10 billion payout that Donald Trump, the President of the United States of America, now demands from his own Treasury Department in a lawsuit that he filed against the IRS. By the way, who does he demand pay him this $10 billion? The American taxpayer. The countless pay-to-play schemes and vanity projects that have consumed his administration, all paid by American taxpayers, are stripping the pocketbooks of Americans to line their own. Last weekend, The New Yorker reported that the President and his family have raked in $4 billion in personal profits by leveraging the Presidency. Let's think about that, $4 billion. The most salient example of this, by the way, we just learned about in the last 7 days. It was an expose by The Wall Street Journal about a scheme that the Trump administration engaged in last year. The Trump family, according to these public reports, sold a 49 percent stake in their crypto company to a member of the Emirati royal family. They did so for nearly half a billion dollars. We don't know every detail of this transaction. We do know that the Trump family received $187 million from that transaction, a payday entangling the President's financial interests with a foreign country. Months later, we know that the Trump administration approved a crypto deal with the UAE that included transferring advanced U.S. technology and AI chips. Mr. Speaker, this is corruption, plain and simple. It is the prioritization of personal profit over the national security interests of our country, the country we all love so dearly. It is wrong. It is immoral, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say nothing. Worse, some of them defend this conduct, notwithstanding that they know it is unlawful, that it is violative of our Constitution. We have an Emoluments Clause, Mr. Speaker, for a reason. The Foreign Emoluments Clause was one of the few provisions to survive and be transferred from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution in 1787. It was contemplated for precisely a scenario as this one. George Mason, one of our Founding Fathers during the Constitutional Convention, warned his fellow delegates that ``if we do not provide against corruption, our government will soon be at an end.'' His words are as true today as they were when he said them 240 some-odd years ago. It is shameful the lack of courage from my Republican colleagues. It is repugnant to the constitutional order that we all have been sworn to defend, to protect, and to vindicate. The question I have, Mr. Speaker, for my Republican colleagues and for every American of good faith is: When is enough enough? How many sweetheart deals will Republicans refuse to condemn? The corruption must end, Mr. Speaker. The corruption must end.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for this opportunity to speak on the floor today. He is new to the Congress, but he has already made an outsized impact during the course of his 13 months of service in this august body taking on corruption. I am deeply grateful to him for his efforts in that regard, not just with respect to overturning Citizens United, but tackling the corruption that has become so pervasive here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, I stand on the floor of the people's House to deliver what I believe to be an urgent message: The time to confront political corruption and clean up government is now. Sixteen years ago to this very day, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that decision overturned longstanding precedent and limits on political spending by special interests. The decision created a dark money system, where money speaks louder than everyday Americans. It has shifted power and influence away from everyday Americans, from the folks in our communities that we are privileged to serve, to instead these shadowy special interests that flood television screens every evening. In my view, Citizens United undermined what it means to be a country of the people, by the people, for the people, and, above all, accountable to the people. Unfortunately, for far too long, this Chamber has failed to do what needs to be done to renew the faith of the American people in our democracy. We cannot accept that. We have to do something about it. As you know, Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I introduced legislation in the form of a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would revoke Citizens United. It would ensure transparency through our campaign finance reform and prevent unrestrained spending and dark money in our elections. Put bluntly, it would put the power back in the hands of the American people. I thank my Democratic colleagues, 73 of them, who have already cosponsored this legislation, who are joining us tonight to be part of this effort, this clarion call, supporting the restoration of integrity and transparency to Washington. Together, I honestly believe, with enough reformers, we can change the Congress. We can ban stock trading by Members of Congress. We can end dark money in our politics. We can overturn Citizens United. We just have to have the political will to do it. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for having that will and all of my colleagues who joined us on the floor this evening.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the time. I support this bill for many reasons. I support it for the reasons that were articulated by the sponsor, my colleague from Colorado, Ms. Boebert; by the ranking member; and by the chairman. I think they have ably explained why this water infrastructure project for southeastern Colorado is so critical, a project 60 years in the making. I support it because, as was noted, there are no cogent issues with this bill as were purportedly articulated in the veto message from President Trump. Far from it, this bill will cost taxpayers virtually nothing as was referenced. It makes good on a promise to the people of rural Colorado. I support the bill because I believe that the people of Otero County and Bent County and Crowley County deserve access to clean water just as every citizen of the great State that I serve and that Ms. Boebert serves, that Mr. Hurd serves, and my other colleagues in the Colorado congressional delegation deserve. I think what is perhaps missing from this debate, and it is important for us to level with the American people, is: Why are we here? Why, despite all the reasons that this bill makes a whole lot of sense? Why, despite the fact that this bill passed unanimously in the House and in the Senate, Mr. Speaker? Why did the President veto this bill? We are here, unfortunately and profoundly, because the President has declared war on our State. In the last 40 days, he has taken step after step to harm the people whom I serve and whom I represent. He is denying disaster assistance for folks in Rio Blanco County and down south in La Plata County. He is freezing childcare assistance and food assistance for hungry families across our State and trying to dismantle a scientific institution in my district. Now, he is denying access to clean water to 50,000 people in southeastern Colorado. It is unconscionable. Now, I am speaking to my Democratic colleagues. To be clear, it is important in this moment for Members to support this override and ensure that this promise that was made to the people of southeastern Colorado is not impaired and is not abrogated by the President's retaliation against the State of Colorado. We cannot let that become the new normal. I will say to all of my colleagues: As you consider where you land on this particular vote, let me be abundantly clear. It does not matter if your community supported Donald Trump politically. If we don't take this step, then, trust me, no town is safe, no county is safe, and no State is safe from political retaliation by the administration. We will be back here on the floor debating a veto for a project in Arkansas or in Texas or in Ohio. The House has an opportunity, in my view, to do the right thing on the merits and to support this important legislation that Ms. Boebert has introduced and that she has fought for with our colleagues in the Senate, Senator Bennet and Senator Hickenlooper. I am urging every Member of this body: Put aside political differences. Recognize that this is a bill you already supported as recently as last month. Recognize that it is going to have a dramatic and consequential impact on a lot of hardworking Americans in the rural parts of our country. Vote in the affirmative on the override.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, today I honor Colonel Herbert Stern, the oldest living graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and to wish him a happy 107th birthday. As a member of the Class of 1941, Colonel Stern and his fellow cadets were the first class to graduate directly into World War II. Colonel Stern's distinguished service and heroism during the war included his brave actions during the Battle of the Bulge, for which he was awarded the Silver Star, and him and his men liberating a concentration camp in Salzwedel, Germany. After World War II, Colonel Stern continued his military service in many high-profile assignments, including positions at the Army War College, NATO headquarters in Italy, and the Joint Advanced Study Group with the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Colonel Stern's final military assignment was with the Central Treaty Organization in Turkey and Iran before retiring as a Colonel on September 1, 1968. In addition to his service to our country, Colonel Stern was a devoted husband to his late wife of over 70 years, Rose; a father to his son Robert, a resident of Fort Collins, and his late daughter Betty; and grandfather to his 2 grandchildren and 2 step-grandchildren. Colonel Stern turns 107 on Christmas Eve this year, and on behalf of the people of Colorado I thank him for his incredible service to our state and Nation and wish him a very Happy Birthday.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his indulgence. By the way, Madam Speaker, just so that we are clear, this bill does absolutely nothing as a practical matter. I welcome Chairman Guthrie's response on this front. It does nothing to impose new standards, it does nothing to compel State public utility commissions to adopt new standards, and it does nothing to require these commissions to implement new standards. It simply says that commissions must consider them. This is basically a press release. That is what this bill is. We could have spared everyone the time and just got on with it so that we can actually get to the substance of addressing the inflation cost crisis that Republicans have unleashed on Coloradans and on Americans writ large, but, no, we are here to debate this very carefully constructed press release that ultimately will accomplish nothing if it is ever signed into law. Madam Speaker, I am voting ``no,'' and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Pallone for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, only in Washington, D.C., can politicians who vote to give tax breaks to the biggest oil companies and fossil fuel companies on planet Earth come down to the floor of the House and argue that their legislative efforts are going to lower electricity prices. Only in Washington, D.C., can politicians stand by as energy projects in their own districts are decimated by their inaction and then claim that they are championing efforts to improve the reliability of the grid. My colleague from Colorado made a lot of references to local utility efforts in our home State. What he failed to mention in his quest to improve reliability of the grid is that several projects in his own district were eliminated by the Trump administration just 5 weeks ago. My colleague from Colorado, like virtually every single Member of the Republican Conference, did nothing to stop it, nothing. By the way, we are not talking about small projects. This is the headline. ``Colorado company may close after Trump administration cuts funding for nearly 3 dozen energy projects in the State.'' I will quote this article, Madam Speaker: ``In all, DOE eliminated $7.6 billion in projects in 16 States, all of which are led by Democrats.'' Here is the kicker: ``But some of the projects are in Republican congressional districts, including a $27 million grant in Colorado's Eighth Congressional District, which Representative Gabe Evans, a Republican, represents.'' Gabe Evans is the author of this legislation we are debating today. I will quote another article. This is the local utility, Madam Speaker, in Fort Lupton, which I believe is the sponsor of this legislation's hometown. I will just quote: ``The Fort Lupton Microgrid project was submitted with the goal of increasing the reliability of the city's municipal water treatment plant.'' This is another project, $6.1 million, Madam Speaker, that was unceremoniously cut 1 month ago by President Trump. If we want to get serious about the reliability of the grid and if we want to address the ballooning electricity costs that are a direct byproduct of the bill that Republicans passed earlier this summer, then a good way to start would be to tell the Department of Energy to stop eliminating energy projects in Brighton, in Fort Lupton, in Fort Collins, and in Longmont, the communities I represent and the communities that my colleague from Colorado represents.