Joe Neguse

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Nine hours ago, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I asked whether or not it was violative of rule XVII or rule XX for Republicans to keep this vote open longer than any other Congress in the history of the United States House of Representatives. We know for certain that this, in fact, is a new precedent that has been broken by Republicans. This is the longest--yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I conclude simply by saying: Is it permissible under the rules for this vote to be held open for 24 hours, 48 hours, 3 months? How long, in the Speaker's judgment, is it permissible to hold the vote?

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. First, I thank the ranking member for his leadership in addressing the scourge of fentanyl overdoses across our country. I serve as one of the co-chairs of the Bipartisan Fentanyl Prevention Caucus with Representative Darrell Issa and Representative Madeleine Dean. It is certainly an issue that we have worked tirelessly on. I appreciate the bipartisan cooperation, notwithstanding, obviously, the disagreements with respect to this particular bill. I think the ranking member has spoken very eloquently with respect to his concerns. I thank the ranking member for indulging me and giving me a few minutes to speak on the floor because, at the conclusion of this debate, I intend to make a unanimous consent request of the Chair. I would hope that it is a consent request that everyone in this House could agree to. As many of my colleagues, of course, are well aware, there was a terrible, heinous terrorist attack in my district 10 days ago in Boulder, Colorado. We have introduced a resolution, H. Res. 476. It is a bipartisan resolution. Several of my Republican colleagues have joined me on this resolution. It denounces anti-Semitism, condemns the horrific attack in my community, and lifts up the organization Run for Their Lives, which was heinously targeted by this terrorist. This is an organization that has been working every week to peacefully call for the release of the hostages held by Hamas in Gaza. Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking for this House to consider my resolution. This terrible attack happened in my district. I have no doubt that if Republican leadership just puts the resolution on the floor, it will pass unanimously in this House. I have no doubt, so I am just asking my colleagues to give us the opportunity to weigh in or at least explain to us and my constituents why my community is being deprived of this resolution that honors law enforcement, the FBI and the Boulder Police Department, which acted so swiftly in response to this terrorist attack. Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Griffith, in particular, to be somebody who shares, I believe, my views as I have articulated them with respect to this particular attack, and I just hope that my colleagues would agree to give this resolution its due course.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H. Res. 476, my bipartisan resolution to condemn the terror attack in Boulder and to denounce anti-Semitism, be called for consideration by the full House.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, my understanding under ``Jefferson's Manual,'' is that the Speaker has the ability to disclose in the Congressional Record the source of the objection. The minority does not object to this unanimous-consent request. Will the Speaker tell the House and the American public, is it Speaker Johnson that opposes this? Who opposes unanimous consent to this resolution denouncing the attack?

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman) for yielding. I also thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew) for introducing this resolution, and I am proud to co-lead this resolution. Mr. Speaker, a week ago, my congressional district suffered an unimaginable tragedy when a terrorist by the name of Mohamed Soliman drove over an hour to carry out a horrific act of terror in Boulder, Colorado. This attacker targeted Jewish members of the Boulder community, literally trying to burn them alive with Molotov cocktails and incendiary devices. Our community, Mr. Speaker, is reeling from this terrorist attack. This kind of hateful violence and anti-Semitism is spreading across the country. It is metastasizing, and it has deeply shaken the people of my State and the people of my community. The group, the organization that was targeted by this horrific attack, Run for Their Lives, is composed of our neighbors and friends. Last Sunday, they gathered on the idyllic Pearl Street Mall to take part in a peaceful walk and vigil as they have done every week for the past 2 years, to call for the release of the hostages that were kidnapped and are being held by Hamas in Gaza. We pray hard, Mr. Speaker, for the 15 victims of this heinous attack, my constituents. Several of these victims are people I know personally. They are friends. I support this bipartisan resolution denouncing anti- Semitism. I continue to stand with those victims, with my constituents, with their families, with our Jewish brothers and sisters as we recommit ourselves to addressing the scourge of anti-Semitism. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the privilege of spending some time with several of the victims of this terrible attack. It is hard for me to describe in words, Mr. Speaker, the emotions I felt in seeing their resilience, their strength, their humanity under such incredibly trying circumstances. It is hard to describe in words, Mr. Speaker, the emotions I felt yesterday walking back in my district in Boulder, Colorado, with thousands of Coloradans, who came from all across Colorado, both of our United States Senators, many community leaders, rabbis, people of all faiths, walking with our Jewish brothers and sisters to condemn this vicious attack and to recommit ourselves in defeating anti-Semitism. That is why I support this resolution. On a final personal note, I will say that I have had the privilege of serving in this body for 6\1/2\ years. My colleague and I, Mr. Van Drew, entered Congress together. He remembers it well. I thank Mr. Van Drew for approaching me in good faith. Our teams working together put forward a resolution that addresses the enormity of this challenge, this threat that our Jewish constituents and Americans are facing. I am proud to co-lead the resolution with the gentleman, and I think his interaction with our office is a reflection of how things ought to work in this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from New York for their leadership.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Goldman mentioned, I represent Boulder, Colorado, in the Congress. I live in Boulder County. My wife and I are incredibly blessed and lucky to be raising our family in this community. Last week, I introduced a bipartisan resolution denouncing this heinous anti-Semitic terror attack in my community. H. Res. 476, a resolution that makes clear that we stand with the Jewish people, the Jewish community, and which explicitly calls for us to do more to address the scourge of anti-Semitism. Mr. Speaker, that resolution is broadly supported by the members of Colorado's congressional delegation. Colorado has eight Federal lawmakers here in Washington. Six of the eight joined that resolution. I thank Republican Representatives Jeff Crank and Jeff Hurd for doing the right thing and joining that resolution so that we could speak in one voice in denouncing this attack. There were two Members of Colorado's entire congressional delegation who refused to join this resolution. One of them, Mr. Gabe Evans of Colorado, instead decided to introduce the resolution that the House is going to consider today. This resolution is not bipartisan. It is not carried by the Member who represents this community. This a first, by the way, Mr. Speaker, in the precedence of this House, that the majority would not give the Representative who represents the victims the opportunity to speak on behalf of their community, but Mr. Evans decided to proceed anyway. Mr. Speaker, of course, because Mr. Evans does not represent this community, the resolution that he has introduced is riddled with inaccuracies. That is not a surprise. It is why it is important for Members who represent communities that are besieged by tragedies like this one to have the opportunity to introduce a resolution and have that resolution considered on the floor. Let me give you some examples, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Evans' resolution claims that there were 14 victims of this attack. He is wrong. There are 15 victims. Maybe he got that from Google or found it in a newspaper article, but had he been involved in the conversations with law enforcement, as I have, he would know that there were 15 victims of this terrible attack. It is poor decorum to ask this body to vote on a resolution that lists the wrong number of victims. They are my constituents. They are real people who were burned half to death by a terrorist 7 days ago. The least you can do is list the right number. Mr. Evans' resolution also says that ``reportedly one victim was a Holocaust survivor.'' She is not reportedly a survivor. She is a Holocaust survivor. There is no doubt to that. There is no allegation to that. I know because she is my constituent. The word ``reportedly'' should be struck from this resolution. My colleague's resolution, Mr. Speaker--Mr. Evans' resolution, to be clear, because we are considering multiple resolutions today, so I am talking about the resolution from Mr. Gabe Evans of Colorado--does not mention once, not once, the Boulder Police Department, the officers who I represent who put their lives on the line to save members of the community 7 days ago. The resolution that Mr. Evans has offered doesn't mention the FBI once, not once, whose swift response was so integral. The only law enforcement agency that Mr. Evans mentions is ICE, the one agency that was not in Boulder that day. We should have the decency to recognize the Boulder Police Department and the officers who I represent who put their lives on the line 7 days ago. It is the least we can do. We have a resolution that does that in a bipartisan way. Had the House majority, the Republicans, done what Republicans and Democrats in this Chamber have done since time immemorial, since I have served in this body, which is allow a Member to put his resolution to the floor for a vote, mistakes like this wouldn't happen. Now, I know that an earlier version of this resolution that Mr. Evans introduced, which he tweeted about, talked about the fact that this was because Colorado was a sanctuary State. He has removed that language from this resolution, so I am heartened that he now concedes that is an inaccurate claim, that that language is not in this resolution. However, in times like these, I would have hoped that my colleagues would be willing to come together to properly honor the victims and to condemn anti-Semitism, as I have said, as our resolution does. It is not hard to do the right thing, Mr. Speaker. The question that Mr. Evans should answer is: Why? Why not join his two other Republican colleagues in Colorado and join the bipartisan resolution that thanks the Boulder Police Department, that thanks the FBI? The purpose of these resolutions is to unite the Congress, not divide it. The purpose is to unite us in condemning violent attacks like these, to make clear that we stand with the Jewish community today and always and that we will be there for them in the weeks and months ahead. Mr. Speaker, I encourage you, read the resolution that Mr. Evans introduced. You will not find a single reference--not one--to the victims' families, the people I met with over the weekend, the people I marched with. There is nothing in Mr. Evans' resolution about standing with the Jewish people. Nothing. The word ``Jewish'' is mentioned once in this resolution. The terrorist's name is mentioned 13 times. There is no mention of this being a hate crime. There is nothing in the resolution about the anti-Semitism that is metastasizing across the country that Mr. Van Drew and I agree is a scourge. So much of what Mr. Van Drew said is in the bipartisan resolution that I introduced. None of it is in the one that Mr. Evans introduced. There is not one mention, Mr. Speaker, in his resolution of Run for Their Lives, the organization that was targeted by this terrorist, the organization that has been pushing for the release of the hostages. They couldn't include one reference to the organization that was targeted? One? I have served in this body, as I mentioned previously, Mr. Speaker, for 6\1/2\ years, and I have seen a lot of partisan debate unfold on this floor, but I think it is disgraceful to not give my community an opportunity to see our resolution considered on this floor. I don't know how the Republican majority can force a vote on a resolution like this that gets so many of the basic facts wrong. I had hoped that my Republican colleagues would choose a different course, but they have yet to do so. There is still time. The Speaker, the majority leader could put our bipartisan resolution on the floor for a vote. They could fix the defects in the resolution that Mr. Evans has introduced. I would implore them to do so.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, very simply, can we amend Mr. Gabe Evans' resolution with the inaccurate information so that it reflects the accurate information about the number of victims? Can we just change the number from 14 to 15 and add the Boulder Police Department and the FBI? Then, the law enforcement agencies in my district, in particular, the Boulder Police Department, can be recognized by this House.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, there are three Republican Members in the Chamber: Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Crank, and Mr. Evans. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House proceed to a vote on H. Res. 476, the bipartisan resolution condemning the anti-Semitic attack in Boulder.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I again simply ask Republican leadership to do the right thing and to bring H. Res. 476, the resolution I have introduced to condemn this attack in my community and in my district, to the floor for a vote. I think what the Republicans have decided to do is shameful. I couldn't be more disappointed.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, 2 days ago a heinous and horrific act of terror took place in the district that I represent in Boulder, Colorado. As families gathered on the idyllic Pearl Street Mall, a group of my constituents, Jewish members of our community, took part in a peaceful walk and vigil to call for the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza as they have done every week for the past 2 years. As they gathered, they were viciously targeted, ambushed, and attacked by a man who attempted to burn them alive with Molotov cocktails and incendiary devices. We are praying hard for the 12 victims, several of whom I know personally. It shocks the conscience that on the eve of the holiday of Shavuot, our Jewish brothers and sisters were subjected to yet another brutal, horrific, and anti-Semitic act of violence. The scourge of anti-Semitism has metastasized across our country, and we have to do more now to stop this hatred and violence. We continue to stand with the Jewish community today and always and will be united in supporting the victims and their families in the weeks and the months ahead. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Davids).

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost let me thank my distinguished colleague from Rhode Island, whose clarion call on this issue, his demand to an end of corruption, an end to this outrageous practice of stock trading by Members of Congress, has inspired many of his colleagues who have joined the coalition that he is building in real time. I couldn't be more grateful to Representative Magaziner for his leadership and for championing this issue at such a critical time. I am grateful to be a partner with him in this effort. Our 26th President, Teddy Roosevelt, once said that no man who is corrupt, no man who tolerates corruption in others can do his duty by the community. That admonition rings true today. Four years ago, I led an effort to ban stock trading by Members of Congress, joined with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. For 4 years, we have tried to convince this Chamber to ban Members of Congress from trading stocks. Why? Members of Congress should be serving their communities, their constituents, and their country, not their stock portfolios. In that 4-year span, 48 months, 1,400 days, how many millions of dollars have Members of Congress in this body made from trading stocks? It is unconscionable. It is a practice that should have ended years ago. We have continued to beat that drum month after month, week after week, day after day, and we will keep doing it until a majority in this body joins the rest of the American people, the public in supporting a ban to this insidious practice. I am grateful to Representative Magaziner for continuing to beat that drum, leading the effort now over the last 2 years. It feels as though we are on the precipice, as Mr. Magaziner noted, of finally getting traction in this Chamber to end this practice. The one cautionary note I would offer, Mr. Speaker, is that in that 4-year span, as I mentioned, this journey, this battle that we have waged, again, colleagues of mine on both sides of the aisle to ban stock trading, I have heard virtually every excuse in the book from some of my colleagues: It is too complicated; there are competing bills; the legislative text is complex. This is very simple. Just ban it. Not 5 years from now, not next year. Let's just put a bill on the floor to ban it, period. Members of Congress will no longer be able to trade stocks, simple as that. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues will join me, join Mr. Magaziner, join the coalition that has organized around this issue so that we can finally get this done and end corruption here in Washington.

Mr. NEGUSE

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. NEGUSE

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

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Chairwoman Foxx, for the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today yet again to expose to the American public the misplaced priorities of the House Republican Conference and the Republican majority here in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority gaveled us out of session 11 days ago. Here we are back in Washington, D.C. Of course, for us, it feels a lot like ``Groundhog Day'' because, notwithstanding all the economic turmoil, the conflicts across the globe, the various ways in which this administration is making life harder for the people of Colorado, for folks across our country, notwithstanding all the challenges that our country is grappling with, House Republicans have decided to spend this week debating what? Three bills: walk-in freezers, commercial refrigerators, and giving new responsibilities to a Department, the Department of Education, that they are seeking to dismantle, that they want to abolish. That is what we are debating here today, Mr. Speaker. I listened to every word of the chairwoman's address outlining every component of the bills that we are considering, but for folks who are watching, for those who have graced us with their presence in the gallery, please understand the three bills: one regulating commercial refrigerators; another regulating walk-in refrigerators; and the third, a bill to give new responsibilities to an agency that they are seeking to destroy. That is it. That is what we are debating this week in Washington, D.C. If folks in the gallery stay here through the week, that is what you will hear. You will hear a debate today, a debate tomorrow, and a debate on Thursday on those three bills. I suspect that the folks who are watching this debate, Mr. Speaker, would agree with me that there are better things for us to spend our time on here in Washington, D.C., than debating walk-in refrigerators. Seriously? I don't know, maybe for Madam Chairwoman it is really important to the people of North Carolina. She may have a lot of constituents who have walk-in refrigerators. I don't know. For me, I can tell you I just spent a week in Colorado, in the rural communities that I represent, hosting townhalls, visiting with folks in my community, constituents, ranchers, farmers, teachers, working families, packed townhalls. At those townhalls, do you know the one subject that no one brought up? Commercial refrigerators. It never came up. At a townhall that we held 3 days ago with over a thousand people in my community, no one at that townhall approached me and said: ``Congressman, can you please go back to Washington and pass legislation on commercial refrigerators? It is really important.'' Nobody said that. They are really concerned about the Republicans' plan to gut Medicaid. They are pretty concerned about the Republican plans to dismantle Social Security offices across the country. They are deeply concerned about reports that this administration is going to end phone line customer service for senior citizens who are relying on Social Security. They are pretty concerned about a Secretary of Defense who apparently is sending out war plans on unencrypted messaging apps, putting our national security at risk. Those are the topics that my constituents care about. Commercial refrigerators is not one of them. You can tell the frustration, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, in my voice. It is the frustration borne from having to come to the floor every week and debate appliances. Can the Republicans just put all the appliance bills in for consideration for 1 week? We can just do them all and then be done with it, and we can move on to having a debate about defending Medicaid, defending healthcare for the millions of Americans who rely on it. Is that too much to ask? I just would beg of the chairwoman, I understand this is an important priority to her. It is important to the Republican Conference. We get it. They are obsessed with appliance regulation. After this week, can we please just be done with these appliance resolutions and get back to debating the issues that the American people expect us to debate? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, I am not trying to make their legislation on commercial freezers look frivolous. It is frivolous. The American people understand that. They get it. Maybe there are a lot of people in the chairwoman's district buying commercial freezers. Again, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you it is not the top priority of the people whom I represent in northern Colorado and in western Colorado. It is far from it. Now, I must say, I did hear with interest the chairwoman reference visiting with her constituents. I would simply say that my understanding was that the chairwoman doesn't do townhalls. I think she recently said in an interview that she doesn't do townhalls because they are an opportunity for constituents to yell at their Congressperson. So I find it of great interest. I would just encourage the chairwoman and every member of the Republican caucus to do a townhall. They are nothing to be afraid of. It is a great opportunity to visit with our constituents. Perhaps if the gentlewoman would do that, she would come away with the same conclusion that I did, which is that the legislation we are considering today is a waste of time and grossly disproportionate to the priorities of the American people. It is simple. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who is the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

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

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

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

Mr. NEGUSE. It is perhaps a point of clarification for a future time. I will say this, before yielding some time to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico, the chairwoman made reference to supposed fear-mongering regarding Social Security. It isn't fear-mongering. It is on the front page of The Washington Post. I will read you the quote: ``Elon Musk put a big target on the Social Security Administration in the first weeks of the Trump administration.'' So it is not fear-mongering to share on this floor the concerns that have been articulated by our constituents regarding the dismantling of the Social Security Administration that President Trump and his administration is engaged in. It happens to be the truth. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I understand the chairwoman apparently now is saying she won't believe The Washington Post articles. I wonder if she will believe the sentiments of her own colleagues? I believe it was Mr. Lawler from New York who a week ago was bemoaning online the closure of one of the Social Security offices in his own district. What are we talking about? These offices are being closed in North Carolina, as well, I believe. This isn't some fictional, imaginary hypothetical. The Social Security Administration is closing down offices. Wait times are getting longer. I just would urge my colleague, whom I have great respect for, to visit with her own constituents, and I suspect that they would share the same frustrations that I am articulating here on the floor. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 433, the Department of Education Protection Act, which would shield the U.S. Department of Education from efforts to dismantle the agency and ensure that every student receives the education they deserve. As my colleague Representative Leger Fernandez already articulated, it makes no sense that Republicans have pushed forward a bill today to give more responsibilities to an agency that they are trying actively to dismantle. Nonetheless, there is a way forward to save teachers and students and rural schools across the country, including back in Colorado, and that is by ensuring that the Department of Education Protection Act receives a vote here on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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