Joe Neguse

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, first, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for hosting this important Special Order hour to honor our friend, our beloved colleague, Judge Jackson Lee. It is a blessing to be able to serve in the people's House with giants--Madam Speaker, you have had the opportunity tonight to hear from several--to be able to serve with Congresswoman Lee and to serve with Congressman Mfume, among many others, and to hear their perspectives on their time serving with Judge Jackson Lee. Mark Twain is credited with saying that history doesn't often repeat itself, but it does rhyme. As Mr. Mfume was describing the late Judge Jackson Lee and her adulation, respect, and admiration for Barbara Jordan, the first Black woman to ever be elected to United States Congress from the State of Texas, I am reminded of a story. At the end of Congresswoman Jordan's life, she had a bone-deep devotion to the Constitution, bone-deep devotion and faith in the Constitution, which was shown on full display during her service in the Congress, in particular during the Watergate proceedings. In 1996, when Barbara Jordan passed away, they were searching through her belongings, and they found in her purse a copy of the U.S. Constitution. I can see, as clear as day right now, our friend, Judge Jackson Lee, on the Judiciary Committee, where myself and Representative Johnson and others had the privilege to serve with her, holding the Constitution out as she was questioning a variety of different witnesses who have come through that committee. Judge Lee's faith, devotion, and commitment to the Constitution was bone deep. To hear Representative Mfume describe his conversations with her as she asked him about the great Barbara Jordan, it is beyond moving. As I try to come up with the right word to describe Judge Lee--I call her Judge Lee because I would always call her Judge Lee. She would call me attorney general, although I have never been an attorney general, but she had decided that would be my moniker. I have spent time over the past several days to conjure up the word that I would use to describe her. The best word that I have been able to come up with is prolific. She was a prolific orator. One need only look at the C-SPAN records to see that she spent more time on the House floor in this Chamber speaking directly to the American public than any Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Think about that legacy. She was a prolific legislator. We have heard from many of our colleagues about the many bills that she was able to get across the finish line, signed into law by multiple Presidents. For me, the work that I remember most vividly is her work to combat gun violence, which was a lifelong passion of hers that she pushed for on the Judiciary Committee. She was a prolific colleague. I, too, joined my colleagues at the funeral for Don Payne, Jr., and I remember well seeing Judge Lee at that service and being so moved that someone fighting such a terrible disease would somehow muster the physical stamina, courage, and strength to venture to New Jersey to say good-bye to her friend. About a month ago, 6 weeks ago, I got a call here in Washington, at 10:50 p.m. on a Wednesday night, from Representative Jackson Lee. She was in Houston. I thought perhaps that she was calling to check-in. I was eager to talk to her about her fight against cancer. She had fought so valiantly, as Representative Barbara Lee articulated earlier, in her first bout with breast cancer over a decade before. I had shared with her that my wife had been battling breast cancer for the last year and that we were drawing strength knowing that she was steadying herself for this next battle. She didn't call me to talk about the disease. She called to harangue me about a press conference that was scheduled for the next day, and she was eager to solicit my help in securing speakers for an important bill that she intended to roll out. Notwithstanding whatever physical ailments she might have been fighting at the moment, she was working until the end. I know I am not the only one who was the recipient or a beneficiary of her calls. She was prolific. I will close with my final observation. I remember coming into the Congress--and Representative Mfume mentioned this. I suspect others have as well--one of my first images of Judge Jackson Lee was her sitting here, right next to the main entryway to this august Chamber during the State of the Union Address. Without fail every year, she would be seated right here. A few days ago, I came across a commendation, a recounting of Judge Jackson Lee's life, and this particular author's view of why Judge Jackson Lee always found herself right here. Their view, their belief, their theory was that for a Black woman representing tens of millions of people from the State of Texas, a woman who was in one of the first coed classes at Yale, one of the first Black women to matriculate from that institution, it was important to her that others see her. It was important that young, Black women, like my 6-year-old daughter, could see her, could be inspired by her. It was important for them to know that if they worked hard enough, they too could find themselves shaking the hand of every President for the better part of the last quarter century. Reading that, it all made sense. Godspeed, Judge Lee. Thank you for your service to our country. Your family is in our prayers.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. First, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we are so grateful to the ranking member for his steadfast leadership in leading the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and of course, his leadership with respect to the PACT Act. I couldn't be more grateful to the colleagues that I have the privilege of serving with in the House Democratic Caucus, whom the country will hear from tonight, many of whom are veterans, people like Representative Deluzio and Representative Carbajal, individuals who have given a great deal to our country, made countless sacrifices, and now are leading the charge here in Congress to protect our veterans. I couldn't be more grateful to people like Dr. Raul Ruiz whose leadership year after year make the case for the Congress to treat this particular issue with the urgency that it deserves, ultimately culminating in the PACT Act. The PACT Act, as you heard from our ranking member, marked the largest expansion of benefits in a generation, cutting red tape and waiting times for veterans who were exposed to toxins and developed certain illnesses. It was historic in that it provided benefits to generations of veterans, many of whom were long forgotten. There are one million PACT Act claims, Mr. Speaker, and we are just getting started. For the families who have suffered the ultimate loss, the PACT Act means access to life insurance, to tuition benefits for their surviving family members, home loan assistance, monthly stipends, and more. Mr. Speaker, you will hear from Mr. Jim Costa and Mr. Tim Kennedy and so many other members of our caucus the same admonition, which is that we have to do everything in our power to provide for the families of fallen servicemembers. We have made progress in that regard, but there is much more for us to do. House Democrats stand ready, as we always are and will be, to get that job done. I thank the ranking member again for his leadership, I thank the members of the House Democratic Caucus for their leadership, and I look forward to making more progress in the days, months, and years ahead.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, again, for his leadership, his clarity of conviction, and the steadfast commitment that he has shown to our Nation's veterans time and time again. I certainly could not say it any better than he has, as you have heard, Mr. Speaker, from a wide cross section of the House Democratic Caucus, Members representing every community in our great country. Our commitment to our Nation's veterans is rock solid. It is evidenced by the work that Ranking Member Takano and House Democrats, in partnership with President Biden, were able to ultimately accomplish in the last Congress, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, 1 million claims under the PACT Act, real families, real stories, and real impacts for countless veterans who have made incredible sacrifices for our country. We are indebted to them, and we will continue our commitment to them in the weeks, the months, and the years ahead led by Ranking Member Takano and by the leadership of the Members whom you have heard from this evening. I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, my gratitude to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Lee), my distinguished colleague, for her leadership on this particular issue, her leadership in the Colorado River Caucus over the course of these last several years as the Upper Basin and Lower Basin States grapple with a historic drought, as was articulated. I could not say it any better than she did as to the bipartisan approach that she and others are championing here in the United States Congress. I am proud to add this particular piece of legislation to that approach. Of course, my gratitude to Chairman Westerman and Ranking Member Grijalva for their consideration of this important bill. I have the honor and the privilege of representing the great State of Colorado in the United States Congress, and the headwaters of the Colorado River are in my district. In Colorado, we know how important it is to preserve, protect, and strengthen these critical water resources and how important data is to that effort, which is why this bill is so important. As has been explained by both the chairman and Representative Lee, the Federal priority streamgage network is a federally funded network of streamgages to measure streamflow information for forecasting, flood and drought planning, water-quality monitoring, and more. The national groundwater resources monitoring network is a collaborative network that serves a similar purpose. At the end of the day, the improved water estimation, measurement, and monitoring technologies programs provide grants to develop and implement new technologies and methodologies to measure water resources data. Each of these programs, I can certainly tell you, Mr. Speaker, is a valuable source of information for water users across the State of Colorado, across the Upper Basin States, the Lower Basin States, and, indeed, across the Rocky Mountain West. It is critical these efforts be supported and authorized, which is why I am proud to sponsor this important bipartisan legislation. It is a simple bill, a noncontroversial bill, one that I hope will earn the support of every Member of this august body, and I certainly look forward, after the House has considered it, to getting it across the finish line with our partners in the Senate, Senator Lummis and Senator Hickenlooper, of course, from the great State of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. NEGUSE

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

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott) for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. NEGUSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, today's rule, as you have heard, provides for the consideration of three partisan appropriations bills. While I certainly agree with my colleague from Georgia regarding the myriad of threats posed to our country, these bills fall far short of addressing those threats. House Republicans have, regrettably, kicked off the appropriations season by doubling down on failed legislation that would, in effect, harm our servicemembers, abandon our allies, cede the U.N. to our adversaries, and withhold critical resources needed to secure our southern border. When it comes to global leadership and national security, House Democrats and House Republicans have a very different approach. House Republicans' Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, H.R. 8771, ultimately revives the doomed isolationism of the early 20th century. Across the globe, America's adversaries threaten the peace and prosperity of the free world. With wars in the Middle East and Europe and humanitarian crises on nearly every continent, the world needs American leadership. How do House Republicans respond? They respond by introducing a bill that cuts international disaster assistance programs by $1.3 billion, cuts international financial institutions by $583 million, and cuts $362 million from programs to improve maternal and child health and fight infectious diseases. By cutting funding, ultimately, for the United Nations and other multilateral investments, this bill is a reversal of our country's historic position among the nations where we stand as a beacon for democracy and liberty. Then we have H.R. 8752, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2025. Now, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this bill will secure our border. It will not. The bill falls short of our responsibility to provide for the safety and security of Americans. Ultimately, it disinvests, decreases funding, for a variety of critical programs designed to prevent threats from terrorists, transnational criminals, foreign adversaries, and violent extremists. My colleagues, Mr. Speaker, do not want to secure the border. How do we know that? Because they had a chance to do precisely that just a few short months ago. They had a chance to do that with the Senate's bipartisan border plan. What did House Republicans do instead? They ensured that that bipartisan deal never even received a vote at the behest of their leader, former President Trump. The proposal under consideration this week that Republicans have put on the floor cuts the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office by $48 million. It cuts the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center by $10.4 million. Ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, why would House Republicans put a bill on the floor that cuts Federal law enforcement training programs? It is a fair question. The bill includes no funds for targeted violence and terrorism prevention grants and the shelter and services program. It cuts family reunification efforts by $33.9 million. At bottom, Mr. Speaker, this is another wasted opportunity, in my view, for House Republicans to address what they say is a top priority: border security. Finally, the rule includes H.R. 8774, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. This bill is extreme even by House Republican standards. Usually, in my experience, it has been the Rules Committee that has been responsible for, for lack of a better phrase, messing up these massive bipartisan efforts, at least during the 118th Congress under Republican control, but my colleagues in the majority on the Rules Committee didn't even get the opportunity to do that with respect to this bill because it came out of committee as a terrible piece of legislation. It divides the country. It undermines national security. It includes provisions that fail to support service personnel. The bill cuts civilian positions at a time when the Department is struggling to meet readiness goals. A number of extreme policy riders that have been included within the bill target reproductive care for women, the LGBTQ community, and more. Finally, it fails to invest in a number of different important programs critical to our national security. It is a bill, unfortunately, detached from reality, and of course the elephant in the room, what we all know to be true, is that it has no chance of becoming law. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. These three bills that we are considering this week have no chance of becoming law. The rest of this is theater. What I would implore my colleagues to do is come back to the negotiating table. Let's negotiate and compromise in good faith and abandon this approach that they have unfortunately taken for the better part of the last 19 months in the 118th Congress, which has ultimately led to this Congress being the least productive in 100 years, in the history of this House. Let's pursue solutions, not stunts. I encourage my colleagues to perhaps follow that admonition. I suspect they won't, but hope springs eternal that they will get back to working with us so that we can get back to governing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The chairman said quite a bit there for me to respond to. I simply say with respect to the deficit, here is an article from just 2 days ago, June 24, 2024, in Axios. The headline reads: ``Trump ran up national debt twice as much as Biden: new analysis.'' I will just read the first sentence. ``Former President Trump ran up the national debt by about twice as much as President Biden, according to a new analysis of their fiscal track records.'' Facts are facts, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the previous question, Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question today, I will offer an amendment to the rule that would bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would restore the nationwide right to abortion care. This Monday was the 2-year anniversary of the Dobbs decision, a decision that left millions of women without the reproductive rights and protections provided in Roe v. Wade for decades. It is clear the far right won't stop there. Not only do the bills in this rule, the rule we are considering today, include restrictions on care for our servicemembers, restrictions on care for women and families abroad, restrictions on funding to end maternal deaths, but also, just for the record, an amendment was offered by one of my Republican colleagues to ban IVF treatments for servicemembers. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. As States across our country create confusion and chaos by enacting Republican policies that I have described, House Democrats are fighting to protect our freedoms. H.R. 12, the Women's Health Protection Act, would ensure that fundamental reproductive healthcare, including abortion care, is available across the country. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. D'Esposito). Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado?

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

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, only in Washington can one argue that they would like to secure the border by advocating for the passage of a bill that they claim will fund border operations and then include in that bill a provision that prevents it from ever being considered by the Senate unless the Senate does its bidding and passes a completely separate bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Scott to be an intellectually honest debater and Member, and I wonder maybe perhaps he will indulge me in a bit of a colloquy because I take him at his word that he believes that we have a crisis on the southern border. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman for the purpose of a colloquy. That is the way you have described it, Mr. Scott, is that right?

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

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

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Scott, if that is the case, and if you feel so passionate about the funding allocations in this bill, then why will the bill be held hostage the moment it passes this Chamber? If this bill passes the House tomorrow, Mr. Scott, when will this bill be sent to the United States Senate? The next day, the next week, the next month, or the next year? Reclaiming my time, I ask because under the provisions of this bill, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have written that the homeland appropriations bill will go nowhere until the United States Senate passes a completely different and separate bill that has only garnered less than one-third of support from the United States. It makes no sense, and it is nonsensical to pass a funding bill for homeland security, for Border Patrol, for TSA, and for FEMA, and then to hold that bill hostage and not allow the Senate to take it up. Any Member who votes for this appropriation bill is doing precisely that. It is nonsensical. I heard another one of my colleagues come to the floor and defend this practice. It is intellectually disingenuous to suggest that this is normal practice of the House. Let me read you a quote, Mr. Speaker: ``This cheapens the process, and I can't believe we are doing this again.'' Let me repeat: ``This cheapens the process, and I can't believe we are doing this again.'' Those aren't my words. Those are the words of a Republican Congressman, Tom Massie, yesterday, in the Rules Committee who was honest in his criticism of the approach that House Republicans are taking by continuing to put this gimmick provision within the rule. If the other side wants to take up a debate about policy with respect to our southern border, then let's have the debate. Don't hold hostage compensation for Border Patrol and Federal employees securing our border and keeping our communities safe. That is not the way to govern. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Rhode Island (Mr. Amo).

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks I will deliver prior to closing, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comments made by my colleague from Missouri, there is certainly no confusion on our side of the aisle, no confusion whatsoever. Republicans have said that they would like to address the crisis on our southern border, and they tanked a bipartisan border bill that was negotiated by some of the more prominent conservative members of the Senate Republican Conference. They did that at the behest of the former President. Now, House Republicans have asked the House to consider and to pass an appropriations bill but have decided they will take their own appropriations bill hostage, as they did a year ago, unless and until the Senate passes a different piece of legislation. That piece of legislation, as the gentleman knows, could not get majority support from the Senate Republican Conference. By way of background, yes, House Republicans have a majority, a dwindling majority, here in the House of Representatives. They are in the minority in the United States Senate. Of course, as the gentleman knows, they do not have a Republican President in the White House. So, compromise and thoughtful negotiation will be required to get anything done in this Congress. Holding your own bill hostage until the Senate passes a separate bill is not that. What my friend from Georgia fails to mention as he talks about if and when the Senate may pass H.R. 2, which I understand he is very passionate about, is that Border Patrol agents will go unpaid in the meantime. TSA agents will go unpaid in the meantime. That is my objection. My objection is to the process that House Republicans have created and crafted, and it is a bipartisan objection. I am not the only one making it. As I said, Representative Massie, I thought, articulated well the concerns with respect to this approach. He and I don't agree on a lot, but we certainly agree on this. A gimmick like this that holds a bill of this consequence hostage does not make sense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I think the question on the minds of the American people, certainly the question on my mind, is: Why do we go through this same partisan process with every major piece of legislation? Why do House Republican leaders force us to go through 6 months of theatrics before we pass the final bipartisan funding bills? We know how this story ends. It is literally always this same plot. Act one, Members of Congress engage in a bipartisan process and work through proposed legislation in their respective subcommittees. Act two, the committee holds a markup. In many cases, those bills retain bipartisan support. Then, act three, the bills make their way to the Rules Committee, where chaos unfolds. Enter all the partisan policy riders, the late-night, closed-door meetings, the usual Republican in- fighting, and so forth. This same process has resulted in Republican leadership having to rely on votes from House Democrats to govern at every turn. Just so we are clear, House Democrats ensured that the U.S. didn't default on its debt last year. House Democrats kept the government funded. House Democrats carried the vote for the fiscal year 2024 NDAA. House Democrats got the national security supplemental to the President's desk. It is clear to me and all those watching that House Democrats remain committed to governing, and we will continue to do so because our communities deserve and demand it. We will stand firm against legislation that would harm American citizens, our global standing, and the servicemembers who sacrifice everything to protect us. In the end, the reality is that this institution will rely once again on the strong, principled leadership of Leader Jeffries, Ranking Member DeLauro, and the other four corners to put together a sensible deal. It is unfortunate that we are wasting valuable time on these bills instead of engaging in a bipartisan process from the start. Again, I urge my Republican colleagues to get serious about this government funding process. The far right is clearly putting us again, Mr. Speaker, on a path toward yet another government shutdown showdown in September. It is what they want. It is what they are driving us toward. My Republican colleagues have a chance, an opportunity, to prevent that. I urge them to take it. They can do that by opposing the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bills. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I missed a recorded vote on On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 1316. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 283.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, first, I thank my friends and Gun Violence Prevention Task Force leaders, Congresswoman Lucy McBath and Congressman Mike Thompson, for convening us this evening. They both have been unwavering in their dedication to ending the scourge of gun violence in this country. I want to take a moment in particular to salute and applaud my friend Representative McBath, who, as you heard, Mr. Speaker, has shown a remarkable amount of courage, bravery, and tenacity in converting her anguish, unspeakable, unthinkable anguish, into action to save lives. We couldn't be more proud of her and the work that she has done since she first graced the Halls of this august body and made ending gun violence a priority of not just hers but of this House. Mr. Speaker, in a country where gun violence is the leading cause of death among children--I will repeat that just to let it sink in, gun violence is the leading cause of death among children in the United States--it comes as no surprise that, today, the Surgeon General declared that gun violence in America now constitutes a public health crisis. My district, Mr. Speaker, has been acutely impacted by that crisis, by the pain of the gun violence epidemic. A gunman, 3 years ago, walked into a local grocery store in my community in Boulder, Colorado. He killed, murdered in cold blood, ten of our beloved community members, including a police officer, who made the ultimate sacrifice, saved lives, died in the line of duty. This tragedy and the shock waves that it has spurred across my State serve as a reminder of why we as a Congress cannot abandon our mission to end this epidemic. My community, Mr. Speaker, is not alone. From Uvalde to Buffalo, from Parkland to Sandy Hook, to every corner of our country, there are communities just like ours with families devastated by the pain and anguish caused by gun violence and Members, as you have heard, of this very Chamber who have experienced devastating loss as a result of this epidemic. It is with those we have lost in our hearts and at the forefront of our minds that we remain committed to ensuring that we turn such anguish into action. As mentioned, Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago today, many of us joined President Biden at the White House. I remember going to the White House with my colleague Representative McBath, to celebrate the enactment of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which Representative McBath, Representative Robin Kelly, Representative Steven Horsford, so many of the leaders from whom will be heard from tonight, along with Representative Haley Stevens and others, have worked vociferously to get across the finish line. This bill is the most significant and consequential gun violence prevention legislation that we have seen in decades. Through this bill, we were able to enact improved and enhanced background checks, protect domestic violence survivors, expand community violence intervention programs, and support improved mental health services across the country. Mr. Speaker, we know that legislating works. I am here today with leaders, like Representative Kennedy of Buffalo, Representative Manning from North Carolina, Representative Stevens, and Representative McBath, and so many others to repeat the call that House Democrats have made time and time again, to say that we are ready to work in good faith with anyone to address what is clearly a pervasive problem across our country, to advance commonsense reforms that we know will save lives. It is time for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, House Republicans, to do the same, to work with us because inaction is no longer an option. Again, I thank Representative McBath, Representative Thompson, and the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force for their work in addressing our most basic charge as Members of this body, which is to keep Americans safe.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, our former Caucus chair, for his clarion call that he has issued year after year, month after month, and day after day to protect and strengthen Social Security. It couldn't be more important, and we couldn't be more grateful for his leadership and the leadership of so many of my colleagues who have joined us tonight on the House floor to talk to the American people about the ways in which House Democrats are protecting critical programs like Social Security and Medicare and the myriad ways in which, unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing the exact opposite. I will give you but one example, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the latter. I know you are familiar with the Republican Study Committee, the largest caucus within the Republican Conference. I don't know if the American people are familiar with it. Eighty percent of the Republican Conference consider themselves members of this committee. A hundred percent of House Republican leadership count themselves among the members of this committee. The former chairman of the Republican Study Committee is now the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Why do I bring up the Republican Study Committee? Well, it might interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that just 2 months ago, the Republican Study Committee issued a budget for 2025. Again, this is a committee that has 80 percent of the Republican Conference in its membership. This backward budget plan is incredibly revealing. What does it do? It upends critical programs that American families depend on, makes draconian cuts to Medicare and Social Security with a plan that increases the retirement age to 69, forcing Americans to work longer for less, a plan that cuts disability benefits and erodes care for children, making it more expensive to care for our families. Their plan raises Medicare costs for seniors, takes away the program's ability to negotiate prescription drug costs, and repeals the $35 insulin and the $2,000 out-of-pocket caps that House Democrats, the Members gathered here on the floor this evening, fought so vigorously to enact in the 117th Congress. Just to be clear, Mr. Speaker, although we are here tonight to talk about Social Security and Medicare and our efforts to protect, strengthen, and expand both of those programs, and Republican efforts to dismantle them, it is worth noting that this is Police Week. Notwithstanding the many statements made by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle concerning their purported support of law enforcement, their budget tells a very different story. Why? How? I encourage every American to go to page 148 of the Republican Study Committee's budget. What you will find is clear, unambiguous, plain language that states that they would like to reduce funding for community-oriented policing services, the COPS Program, a program that the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania has fought to expand for years, a program that is funding the hiring of law enforcement officers in my district in Colorado and countless other jurisdictions across our great country, a program that is critical to law enforcement's abilities to provide for public safety in our country, and a program that they intend to cut. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, insofar as one were to glean essential observation from a review, a cursory review of their budget, it is simple: House Republicans are uninterested in tackling issues that matter to the American people. We will not let them cut Social Security. We won't let them cut Medicare. We won't let them cut law enforcement funding. That much is clear.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say one of the many privileges I have in serving as assistant Democratic leader is having the opportunity to see firsthand the way in which my colleagues in the House Democratic Caucus are able to convert their passion and conviction on consequential public policy issues into action. That is precisely what the gentleman from Connecticut has done for the better part of the last decade, from when he first introduced this legislation. I am proud to support it. I am proud to support his efforts to protect and enhance Social Security and to do everything that we can to ensure that our colleagues' plans on the other side of the aisle to dismantle this program never see the light of day. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and friend from Connecticut for yielding.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, today is a serious day, a serious moment for this institution. Apparently, according to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the House Republicans, we are gathered here today to discuss a very consequential question, a consequential issue facing the country, Madam Speaker: home appliances. Toasters, microwaves, and refrigerators are the topics, Madam Speaker, that House Republicans have chosen to waste this institution's time on. Of all the challenges facing the country, of all the issues facing our community, apparently their top priority is the so-called Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act. Madam Speaker, you may recall that Republicans noticed a Rules Committee meeting on this very same bill just a few weeks ago. That bill was then hastily removed. We assumed it was because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were essentially shamed into pulling it from the agenda, that they realized a bill on home appliances probably doesn't meet the moment, considering all the real crises that we have going on. Apparently, that shame only lasted for a few weeks because today's legislation, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, is back for round two. Just to be clear, Madam Speaker--I know you are aware of this--this is a package deal. This isn't the only appliance bill that Republicans have noticed for this body to consider. The Liberty in Laundry Act is the real title of a bill that House Republicans would like this body to consider, as well as the Refrigerator Freedom Act, the Clothes Dryers Reliability Act, the Affordable Air Conditioning Act, the Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act. Those bills, I guess, didn't make the cut for this particular rules debate. I suppose we will take those up next week. Madam Speaker, this House should be focused on addressing the consequential challenges of our time, not on political games and messaging bills. How far this body has fallen. The same august Chamber where James Madison and Abraham Lincoln once served is now debasing itself, debating the fate of microwaves and toaster ovens because that is how House Republicans have decided to spend their time and their majority. My colleagues, regrettably, unfortunately, are out of touch with the priorities of the American people. The American people expect, rightfully so, for this Chamber to address the issues that they care about, not waste time on nonsense bills. By the way, Madam Speaker, the rest of the measures that we will consider today, unfortunately, are more of the same. H.R. 7109, the so- called Equal Representation Act, is plainly unconstitutional. Any plain reading of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment makes clear that this bill is unconstitutional. House Republicans are pushing forward anyway. Another bill that we are considering today is yet another CRA, this time on apparently a bulletin that was issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission. I have lost count of how many days we have wasted in the last 17 months considering CRAs. Every week, another CRA is submitted by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. One would have hoped, Mr. Speaker, that House Republicans would have learned their lesson a year ago after wasting our time on CRAs for the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat, that perhaps this House could focus its attention on more substantive matters. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the last bill that this body will consider this week, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, is a bill that I know is familiar to you, Mr. Speaker. It is to me. We voted on a rule about this particular bill 7 days ago. Why is it back before us a week later? I will tell you why. Republican leadership has lost control of the Rules Committee. They lost control months ago. Now, they often lack a procedural majority here on the House floor. Last week, our colleague, Representative Leger Fernandez, introduced a motion to recommit. The motion to recommit was very simple. It pointed out the fact that the Republicans' mining bill would allow foreign adversarial nations to mine American land for free. What happened to that motion to recommit? It passed. Six Republicans joined every Democrat in supporting that motion to recommit. Those familiar with ``Schoolhouse Rock!'' would understand that that means the bill goes back to committee, the House Committee on Natural Resources, where I serve, Mr. Speaker, and where you serve, so that we could work out the issues that this body, on a bipartisan basis, identified with this bill 7 days ago. Instead, House Republicans have brought the very same bill back to this body for its consideration without going to the Natural Resources Committee. I have no idea how the six Republicans who voted for the motion to recommit last week can possibly defend or rationalize a vote against the motion to recommit this week. I suppose we are going to find out. Mr. Speaker, there are better ways for this Chamber to be spending its time. I implore the Speaker and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Let's get serious. Let's work together to address some of the consequential challenges that face our respective States and our country. Let's stop with these nonsense bills. I implore you. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just two quick points. One, with respect to everything that my colleague from New York just articulated, this bill has nothing to do with noncitizens voting. It does not address that whatsoever. I am not sure what bill the gentleman from New York was talking about, but it is not the bill that this body is considering. Secondly, I would just say, with respect to comments made by my friend from Indiana, I think she used the phrase ``woke agenda.'' Apparently, appliances are now woke, according to my colleagues. I don't know what a woke microwave or a woke refrigerator looks like, but that is the new target of House Republicans. It is good to know we are going to be spending hours on the floor this week debating the future of woke microwaves. The House Republican agenda is coming to a home near you. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say that insofar as my colleague from Indiana wants to have a debate about climate change or a debate about electric vehicles or renewable energy, I am certainly open, and I welcome that debate. I suspect it would be a robust one. That is not the debate that Republicans have initiated on the House floor. The debate this week is about freedom for refrigerators. Again, these are not bills that we conceived of. They are Republican bills. So the notion that this debate is focused or centered on some of what the gentlewoman from Indiana described is just not consistent with the bills that are actually before the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, the argument made by my colleague from Indiana with respect to the last argument made, the supposed legal argument, is completely without merit. It contravenes the plain language of the 14th Amendment and generations of precedent. So the notion that somehow the arguments we are making to follow the plain text of the Constitution and the way in which the 14th Amendment has been construed for generations, that that argument would not govern this particular debate to me just doesn't hold water. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure every woman has full access to essential reproductive healthcare including abortion care. Far too many States have enacted laws to either ban some or all abortions which Republicans have declared numerous times is their goal. So while my Republican colleague wants to debate freedom and choice when it comes to household appliances, microwaves, I will give them a chance here today to instead ensure freedom and choice in reproductive healthcare for women across this country. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.