Joe Neguse

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable member of the Summit County, Colorado, community and World War II veteran, Mr. Stuart Gordon. Affectionately known as ``Boot,'' Mr. Gordon celebrated his 102nd birthday earlier this year. He has led a remarkable life as a veteran, educator, author, artist, and mentor to generations of Coloradans, and he has enriched the Summit County community by living life to the fullest and bringing others along for the ride. Mr. Gordon's story of service to our country began long before he made Colorado his home. He served as an Air Force fighter pilot during both World War II and the Korean War, flying with three different fighter squadrons. He earned his nickname ``Boot'' after jumping out of an Air Force plane during training; his parachute malfunctioned and opened seconds before he would have hit the ground at 130 miles per hour, causing his boots to fly off his feet. Mr. Gordon's military service was a formative experience for him, and he continues to attend the annual Memorial Day ceremony in Dillon, Colorado. We are honored that Mr. Gordon shares lessons from his military service with younger generations of Coloradans. In the 1970s, Mr. Gordon settled in Silverthorne and hand-built his legendary home, which is nicknamed the ``Foam Dome'' for its 15 interconnected igloo-like domes. He quickly became part of the fabric of the local community. He taught English, history, and the arts, and he has spent much of his life on the slopes as a ski instructor. He taught himself to ski at five years old, and he found himself at home in the beautiful mountains of Summit County. Even in his retirement, Mr. Gordon has continued to prioritize connection with his community. He has accomplished everything on his personal ``adventure'' bucket list (such as traveling in a hot air balloon, swimming in both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and visiting the Great Wall of China), so now he is embarking on a second bucket list focused on helping others. He has shared his unique home with more than 100 different tenants. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing Mr. Gordon and thanking him for his service to our country and to the Summit County community. At 102 years old, Mr. Gordon has witnessed an extraordinary amount of history, but he has also helped make a little bit of history himself. I am grateful that he has chosen to make Summit County his home, and I am proud to represent him in Congress. I thank Boot for his service, his contributions to our community, and the example he continues to set for all of us.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget for his leadership. I don't serve on the Committee on the Budget, but my understanding of the Committee on the Budget, perhaps a naive understanding, was that the committee would try to build a responsible budget, to live within its means. I must say, with deep regret, Mr. Speaker, I have respect for my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, but every time he comes to the floor, it ends up costing us all more money. This bill is going to increase the deficit by $70 billion, $70 billion with a b. That is how much the Republican Committee on the Budget proposes that we spend, that we impair our national deficit. For all of the Freedom Caucus members, for all of the Republicans who have come to the floor to shed crocodile tears about the fiscal health of our country, understand that in half an hour, you will be voting in favor of a bill that increases the deficit by $70 billion. Mr. Speaker, we ought to reject it.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, like tens of millions of Americans, my family has been impacted by the scourge of the terrible disease of cancer. My wonderful wife, Andrea, over 1 year ago, battled breast cancer for roughly 18 months. I saw up close the grit, the determination, and the strength that she showed daily to beat that terrible disease. We were very lucky, but for the grace of God, the incredible care that she received from healthcare providers, and the support that we received from family and friends, that she was able to beat that disease. I count my blessings every day. Mr. Speaker, you can imagine, given my family's journey, my dismay at an announcement that was made just a few days ago by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It didn't receive a lot of fanfare, but the agency issued a new rule to implement President Trump's big, terrible bill, H.R. 1. This rule, in the fine print, makes very clear that it will become more difficult for cancer patients to be able to stay on Medicaid. Let me repeat that. This pernicious provision that the Trump administration has now proposed would make it more difficult for cancer patients to be able to access and stay on Medicaid. The question that I am here today to ask of my colleagues is: Why? Why pursue this rule, knowing, as I know you do, Mr. Speaker, that 1 out of every 10 Americans who has a history of cancer are on Medicaid-- 1 out of 10? Knowing that this is a matter of life and death for millions of Americans, why pursue this type of terrible provision and policy that we know will result in countless Americans no longer being able to access the care that they need to survive? It is cruel. It is unconscionable in my view. Mr. Speaker, I am here today on the floor to make a humble request to my colleagues. There is still time to convince CMS, HHS, and the Trump administration to turn back and to not proceed with this rule. Countless Americans and a variety of organizations dedicated to helping cancer patients have publicly asked the Trump administration--have implored the Trump administration--to reverse course. There is still time, and I would just encourage my colleagues-- request of my colleagues--implore my colleagues to join us in demanding that the Trump administration do the right thing: Rescind this rule on behalf of countless families in our country who are looking to us in Washington for help.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of Eco-Cycle. Based in Boulder County, Eco-Cycle was founded by a small group of local residents who took it upon themselves to bring recycling into their community. What began with the purchase of old school buses and volunteers driving from one neighborhood to the next, collecting aluminum, paper, and glass, is now one of the Nation's oldest and largest nonprofit recyclers. Eco-Cycle connects our community through partnerships with residents, governments, schools, businesses, and farmers. It is an institution not only of environmentalism, but of education. Throughout the past 50 years, Eco-Cycle has been a part of several groundbreaking initiatives, including their Zero Waste School program, Green Star Schools program and Environmental Education programs that combined have reached more than 75 schools across Colorado. Eco-Cycle also, in partnership with the City of Boulder, opened the Center for Hard-to-Recycle Materials (CHaRM), the first facility of its kind in the United States. Recently, they have worked with farmers across Boulder County through the Farmer First program to engineer a closed-loop composting system. The story of Eco-Cycle is an example for us all, that even small changes made by a few dedicated people can have astonishing results for entire communities. I am honored to represent this storied organization in Colorado's 2nd Congressional District, and I thank the staff and volunteers at Eco-Cycle who do this important work every day. I congratulate them on 50 years.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, first, I thank my colleague from New Mexico for her steadfast leadership, for the work that she has done as a champion for the Southwest, the great State of New Mexico, and, of course, her leadership on all matters connected to science. I am grateful to her for her steadfast leadership and commitment. Mr. Speaker, I also thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the chairman of the full Committee on Natural Resources, for giving me the opportunity to present this important legislation. I certainly echo his remarks, the remarks from Representative Stansbury, and, of course, the remarks of Ranking Member Huffman, as well. It has been said, but I think it bears repeating: Wildfires do not care if lands are Federal, State, or local. They don't respect manmade boundaries or political jurisdictions. To give you a sense of what that means on the ground level, I am privileged to represent the great State of Colorado here in the U.S. Congress. I represent a Congressional District that spans 12,000 square miles. It is larger than eight States, most of which are on the Eastern Seaboard. Over half of my Congressional District is Federal public lands. I represent three national forests, some of the most beautiful parts of our country. When you represent a district as large and as rural as mine, you see up close the damage and the devastation that comes from wildfires. Colorado is no stranger to wildfires, but in the last several years, we have had some of the most devastating in the history of our State. The Cameron Peak wildfire, the East Troublesome wildfire, these are wildfires that raged across hundreds of thousands of acres of land, Federal land, State land, and local land. What we have learned during the course of those fires and in the wake of that devastation is the critical need for partnership and for wildfire mitigation that ultimately stretches across these political boundaries. It is the reason why, in the wake of the Cameron Peak fire in particular, we created the Bipartisan Wildfire Caucus, bringing together folks from across the political spectrum here in Washington, D.C., to try to arrive at solutions like this bill, which I think could make a real difference in saving lives in the Rocky Mountain West, in my Congressional District, across the great State of Colorado, and indeed across the country. The Cross-Boundary Wildfire Solutions Act is simple. It is straightforward. It will help us identify and resolve the challenges that may exist with respect to gaps in wildfire mitigation across land ownership types. It is a simple, straightforward, bipartisan solution, and I am just delighted that we are able to come together on this important bill that I have introduced. Again, I thank you for your consideration. I hope we can all join in passing this and getting it across the finish line.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, John F. Kennedy once said that ``there are few if any issues where all the truth and all the right and all the angels are on one side.'' Mr. Speaker, this is one of those issues. Five years ago, I stood here on the House floor, just a few feet from where I stand today, as the worst nightmare of our Framers and our Nation's Founders came to life, when rioters stormed the U.S. Capitol, this citadel of democracy, attacked police officers, and attempted to enter this Chamber and subvert the peaceful transfer of power. Donald Trump, on the very first day that he was sworn in, in his second term, pardoned 1,600 individuals who were convicted of crimes connected to January 6. Felons, people who attacked police officers here on Capitol Grounds, he pardoned them, gave them a get-out-of-jail- free card. Now, 15 months later, he again does the unthinkable. He sues the Federal Government that he administers and attempts to secure a $10 billion shakedown from the IRS. When that fails, when he realizes that that isn't politically palatable, that the American people won't tolerate Donald Trump signing a $10 billion check of their hardworking money to himself, he dispatches the Acting Attorney General, his former personal attorney, to negotiate a so-called settlement. The outcome? A nearly $2 billion slush fund, where the Department of Justice will pay rioters who attacked our Capitol. These individuals will be paid with your money, the money of hardworking taxpayers. It is unconscionable. It is corrupt. My Republican colleagues in this Chamber do nothing about it. Where is the Speaker? Where is Mike Johnson? How can he look the officers who guard him every day in the eye, knowing that the people who attacked those officers will now be paid out of this Trump slush fund? It is outrageous. If there were ever a time for political courage, now would be it. There are a handful of Republicans who have said publicly that they abhor what this is, just a handful. The Speaker of the House of Representatives--let me say it clearly--Mike Johnson owes the country an answer. Will he allow these rioters, these convicted felons who assaulted Capitol Police officers, to be paid with taxpayer dollars out of this slush fund? If not, what does he intend to do to stop it? We have a bill that has been introduced. I believe it will be bipartisan. There are Members of the U.S. Senate on both sides who are pushing to try to stop this from materializing. The Speaker could end it today. We are not asking him for much. Show a modicum of courage.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, it is absurd. It is unconscionable. It is outrageous. I just say to the gentleman from Georgia, whom I respect, I understand his arguments on the merits of some of these bills, but spare us the pious lectures, please, especially about corruption, not while President Trump is suing the Justice Department, suing the IRS, and trying to secure more money from hardworking taxpayers in our country, please. For my Republican colleagues who are debating whether to vote on this procedural rule, just remember that when you had an important issue that you wanted debated on the House floor, your Conference rejected that debate. If you are interested in pesticide immunity or the regulation of field trip forms for middle schoolers, yes, they have you covered. This rule encompasses all of that. If you have a particular issue that is important to your constituents here, to your district, you are out of luck.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, first, let me say thank you to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee for his principled leadership. I think it is well understood by most Americans that Congress is broken and that Congress is deeply dysfunctional. For anyone who is looking for another data point, we have one this morning: the Republican Rules Committee chairwoman criticizing and attacking Democratic members of the Rules Committee for trying to get a vote on Republican amendments. Think about that. The amendments that we offered last night, that I offered last night, were not mine. They were amendments from members of the Republican Conference. For having the audacity to suggest that Republican ideas and Democratic ideas ought to be considered on the floor of the House, in this august Chamber, we have the Republican chairwoman attacking even the concept that a Democratic Member of Congress could dare introduce a Republican amendment. For Ms. Boebert, for Mr. Van Orden, for Mrs. Miller-Meeks, for Mr. Steube--go down the line--vote after vote after vote, two-thirds of Republican amendments were rejected by the Republican Rules Committee. Why? What are we afraid of? This ought to be the Chamber where we can have a reasoned, objective debate and let the chips fall where they may. I think it is deeply offensive to those Republican Members, to the Members in my conference, and, fundamentally, to the American people to suggest to them that we aren't capable of having that debate. Just to be clear, on the substance, I have heard a lot of bluster today. It is shocking to me to hear my colleagues lecture us about fiscal responsibility as they preside over the highest debt in the history of the Republic, to hear them pontificate about fighting for working families as they enact the largest cut to SNAP, to food assistance for hungry families, in the history of the country. Madam Speaker, they sermonize about fraud and corruption while the Trump administration engages in wholesale corruption daily, and they do nothing about it. President Trump, right now, is suing the IRS for a $10 billion shakedown. Think about it. He is suing the Federal Government that he controls for a check for $10 billion that he hopes to secure that will go to Donald Trump, signed by Donald Trump. Who is paying the check? The American taxpayers. If you want to root out corruption, let's start there.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the Breckenridge Outdoor Education Center. Founded in 1976 in Breckenridge, Colorado, the Breckenridge Outdoor Education Center (BOEC) has grown into one of the Nation's largest adaptive outdoor recreation organizations. Each year, BOEC serves more than 2,000 individuals--including people with disabilities, veterans and their families. The dedicated instructors and volunteers at BOEC work to ensure that individuals of all abilities can experience the confidence, independence, and joy that come from the outdoors. Colorado's mountains, rivers, and public spaces draw people from around the world to experience the beauty of the outdoors. Through its innovative adaptive programming, BOEC has helped ensure that individuals with disabilities, who have historically faced barriers to outdoor recreation, can experience opportunities to explore and connect with Colorado's natural environment. This includes programs for veterans that honor their service and promote healing, resilience, and community. I am honored to represent this storied center in Colorado's 2nd Congressional District, and I thank the staff and volunteers at the Breckenridge Outdoor Education Center who do this important work every day. Congratulations on 50 years.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. First, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the distinguished gentleman from Chicago, Illinois, for his friendship, for his partnership, and for articulating so well today the stakes. Since returning to office, as my colleague from Illinois referenced, President Trump has made life harder for everyday Americans. He has made life less affordable for everyday Americans, certainly for the working families that I represent in northern and western Colorado. Let me give you a sense, my colleague from Illinois, about what the last 16 months have been like for my constituents, the folks that I have the privilege of serving in Colorado. President Trump has denied not just one, but two major disaster relief requests for massive fires that took place last year in Western Colorado, the Lee and Elk fires, and devastating flooding in Southwest Colorado. These are communities that are conservative, rural communities that President Trump denied disaster relief to them all the same. He has gutted childcare support for Colorado families. Childcare centers across Colorado--Larimer County, Adams County, Western Slope, Southern Colorado--are closing because of this President's policies. He slashed Medicaid, the largest cut to SNAP in the history of that program, families going hungry across our State and across our country, chaos for our farmers and our ranchers, record-high bankruptcies for America's farmers, including in Colorado. He fired thousands of workers at our Federal laboratories, in our national parks, and in our national forests. He has--again, the gentleman said it so well--increased costs on everything. Everything is more expensive. Groceries, medicine, car insurance, health insurance, you name it, it has all gone up. Now, given all that I just described, the President has the audacity, the gall to propose a $2.2 trillion--trillion with a t--wish list in the form of his budget request that would implement historic cuts to education, to housing, to health programs, all while creating a $1.5 trillion slush fund for the war that he has unconstitutionally declared. In my view, it is reprehensible, and it is not consistent with the needs of the American people. We need this administration to get serious about helping everyday Coloradans and Americans afford healthcare and afford the basic needs that they have. We need them to get serious about an economic agenda that actually makes life better for working people. Unfortunately, this budget proposal is anything but that--quite the opposite. Now, the good news is that Republicans here in Congress don't have to follow the President's budget. It is not a requirement. I know that may come as a surprise to some folks who are observing the proceedings here in Washington, D.C., because, for the last 16 months, House Republicans have capitulated to virtually every whim, every request, and every demand that this President has made. But they don't have to do that. In fact, they are expected by our Framers and our Founders not to, to instead jealously guard the powers of our branch of government under Article I. Democrats and Republicans can work together through the appropriations process to advance a proposal that would actually lower costs for everyday Americans. That to me ought to be our North Star. I hope our colleagues are listening today. I thank the gentleman from Chicago and so many of my House Democratic colleagues who I know will be speaking this evening for making the case in such an impassioned way. Let's hope it doesn't take my colleagues too long to ultimately do what is right.

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. Mr. Speaker, I regret that our time for debate has come to a close. I will note, as I did last week, the fact that not a single member of the House Republican Conference is willing to come down to the floor and debate in support of these bills is telling. It tells you all you need to know. For those that are watching in the gallery and all of those who might be watching from home on C-SPAN, there are 218 members of the House Republican Conference, 218. None of them, save for my colleague from Texas, were willing to come to the floor to speak in support of the resolution congratulating themselves for the work that they have done this year, not one. What is even more fascinating, because, of course, as you know, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a long resolution, four or five pages, whereas clause after whereas clause recounting all of the bills and the resolutions that were passed last spring and last fall and last summer, and this winter, they gave this resolution to the newest member of the House Republican Conference. He has been in Congress for like 6 days, I think. He was sworn in last Tuesday or Wednesday. I get it. I understand why they gave this resolution to the new guy. You know, it is a tough assignment to say your first bill is going to be a bill congratulating the rest of us for a job well done. That is a tough assignment. Mr. Speaker, rural America is struggling. I know I don't need to tell you that. Rural farmers in my State are struggling. The cost of everything is going up. Trump's burdensome tariffs forced costs to skyrocket a year ago. In 2025, 15,000 farms closed, 15,000 farms. The rate of bankruptcy for America's farmers has never been higher. It has never been higher. I challenge any of my Republican colleagues, those who, like me, represent rural communities and farmers and ranchers, I challenge them to go take this resolution to their constituents. Ask them whether they think that this House deserves applause and plaudits and credit and congratulations for a job well done. I am pretty sure I know the answer. I urge my colleagues, if they, like me, are sick and tired of this place wasting time functioning in this dysfunctional way, then oppose the previous question, oppose the rule, oppose the underlying bills, and join us so that we can get back to the serious issues that face the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, my colleague from Texas has spoken with great passion, great passion about any number of issues and policies that he favors and he would like to see accomplished. None of that has anything to do with the resolution that we are debating today. We might as well just--we can set aside a different time for Mr. Roy and I to engage in that debate. Today, we are debating the resolution that is before us, a resolution that does nothing, achieves nothing, and changes nothing. As I said, it is a participation trophy. I wish that I would have proposed perhaps a motion to recommit that would maybe change the name of this resolution to the participation trophy. We will have to think of that for next week. I have no doubt I will have another opportunity because I imagine that Speaker Johnson is going to keep this going for the next 7 months. I am very curious about what participation trophy House Republicans intend to hand out to themselves next week. This week's was--I think rural America was the caveat that they added. Last week's was the big, beautiful bill--or not the big, beautiful bill. That is what Mr. Roy called it today. They changed it last week to the working families bill or something to that effect. So anyway, we will have to see. I don't know. Maybe next week's resolution will be a commemorative resolution to congratulate House Republicans on the 14-day FISA extension that they passed, and we can spend a half an hour talking about all the ways that House Republicans have changed the country for the better. They are so desperate to convince Americans that they decided that a House resolution is a tool for them to make that case. Again, there are better ways, Mr. Speaker, to spend this body's time. I can't imagine that our Framers--that James Madison would have thought that this is how the House of Representatives would be functioning 250 years later. I can't possibly believe that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would just say the approach that my friend from Texas describes is wrong and imprudent and whatever adjectives he might characterize it as. That is the approach that Senate Republicans took, so the argument is best made to your colleagues in the upper Chamber. Republicans control the Senate, not Democrats. They passed that bill. They sent it here to the House, not once, but twice. I understand that my colleague from Texas opposes that bill, and he has explained the reasons why he opposes it. I believe, as I said previously, that the vast majority of this House would vote in favor of that bill, which is why it ought to come up for an up-or-down vote. Let the chips fall where they may, no pun intended. I will say this, Madam Speaker: I have been keeping meticulous count. I have a little, I guess you could call it, Biden bingo card here. I like to keep track. My colleague from Texas has mentioned Biden six times, six times and counting, in the last couple minutes. I get it. I understand. He does not like Joe Biden. I understand. The message is received. Joe Biden isn't President anymore. Republicans have been in charge for 16 months. Republicans have had the majority for 16 months. Republicans have had complete control in Washington, the Senate, the Presidency. What do Republicans have to show for it? Republicans have meaningless resolutions, whereas clause after whereas clause: We are wonderful. We have passed this resolution. We passed this bill. We are frustrated that some Senate Democrats have opposed it. That is it. This is 16 months of work. Again, I would just say to you: I certainly can say very confidently that citizens in our country are not satisfied or pleased or heartened by the way in which this body is functioning. I think my colleague from Texas knows that too. For the Republican voters out there, for those who believe in the House Republican Conference's policies or, you know, perhaps share their worldview, share their ideology, I am here to tell you they are not pursuing that agenda either. It is not that I disagree in this instance with the substance of what they are pursuing; it is that they are not pursuing any substance; it is that we are just wasting time. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, a lot to respond to. Apparently, my colleague from Texas wants the American people to believe that the reason they are paying astronomically high prices for gas is because the protections for bald eagles and humpback whales are too strong; that we need to weaken protections for endangered species, and lo and behold, we do that, gas prices will drop. It has nothing to do with the war in Iran. It couldn't possibly be connected to the unconstitutional war that the President has decided to wage. It must be the protections for bald eagles. I am sure that is the case. Give me a break. The American people know better. They have the audacity to lecture the House, lecture their colleagues on the other side of the aisle about affordability when, right now, everything is getting more expensive. For families back home in Colorado, the families that I am privileged to represent, times are tough. Costs for everything are going up. Health insurance, car insurance, appliances, gasoline, you name it, the price is going up. I am sure it will come as great solace to those families that House Republicans have decided this week that the best way to address it is to pass a resolution congratulating themselves for the work that they have done. I am sure that is going to solve the problem. Republicans are on the case. Again, with all respect to my colleague, I think he has been given an impossible assignment today: to defend that resolution. I suppose that is why he focused on some of the other bills that we are considering today, because that resolution is indefensible. I suspect my Republican colleagues aren't necessarily watching today. I think me and my colleague from Texas are the only two Members of Congress in this Chamber. Nobody else is here--oh, of course, the Speaker as well--three Members. There is nobody else who will be here to debate this resolution. I hope that some of my Republican colleagues, perhaps, may watch some of this and maybe decide tomorrow to vote against the rule because voting for the rule is an endorsement of Speaker Johnson's strategy to waste everyone's time, to waste our time, and to waste your time, and fundamentally, more than anything else, to waste the American people's time when there are real issues of consequence that merit our attention, our scrutiny, our inquiry, and our work. The best way to stop this Chamber from debating meaningless and needless self-congratulatory resolutions is for a few Republicans to vote against the rule and to suggest that maybe there are some other issues that they would like this body to consider. I hear a lot--you see all of this on social media all the time--my Republican colleagues who will demand votes on this legislation and that legislation, a laundry list of Republican priorities, none of which the House is considering, none of it. I guess we will find out, but I look forward to--I don't look forward, actually. I bemoan the fact. I suspect maybe Mr. McGovern will be managing that rule next week when we do the congratulatory resolution on the resolution for the last resolution. We will have someone else debate that one because I suspect Mr. Roy and I will have grown tired of engaging in this debate. In any event, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Tran).

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, first, I will say with respect to the shutdown of DHS, I find it exceedingly rich that my colleague would say what he said when, last night, he voted against an amendment in the Rules Committee that would have enabled this body to consider the bill that passed the United States Senate twice on a unanimous basis to fund the Department of Homeland Security. Ted Cruz didn't object. Mike Lee didn't object. No Member of the United States Senate objected to that bill. If it were put on the floor for a vote, it would pass with an overwhelming two-thirds majority today. He knows it. You know it, Madam Speaker. So, spare me these complaints that somehow Democrats are responsible. It is contradicted by the clear facts and procedural history. Madam Speaker, I will also say, with all respect to my colleague, that the gentleman covered a lot of topics: immigration, Joe Biden, gas prices, and Joe Biden again. What is fascinating is that the resolution that the gentleman has offered, or, rather, that he is being asked to debate today, has nothing to do with any of it. ``Resolved, That the House of Representatives, through policies . . . has demonstrated support for the prosperity and economic growth of the United States.'' They are saluting themselves. What are we doing here? Again, I understand that the gentleman from Texas does not decide what bills we debate on the floor, so I am talking to Speaker Johnson. If he wanted to, he could put a bill on the floor today to pay TSA agents. He could put a bill on the floor regarding healthcare costs. We could spend all week debating hundreds of bills that have been introduced by Democratic Members and Republican Members. He has decided to force the House to vote on this press release instead for the second time. What is this obsession with the House recognizing House Republicans? We get it. They are proud of themselves. Everyone understands that. Can we move on? That, to me, is the absurdity of what we are debating here on the floor today. I am hopeful that this will be the last week, but I am not optimistic. Last week, I thought it was a joke. I said that maybe next week, we will debate a resolution congratulating House Republicans for passing the congratulatory resolution that they passed last week. Apparently, that was not a joke. If the Speaker is listening, I didn't mean that literally. I think we should stop with the self-congratulatory resolutions so that Mr. Roy and I can actually debate the underlying policies and the challenges that are facing the country. Yet, this is not that. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Tran), I just will explain that if we defeat the previous question, I intend to offer an amendment to the rule to adopt the Senate amendment to H.R. 7147, which was and is the bipartisan Senate compromise bill that I just referenced a few moments ago that the Senate unanimously passed twice now. I understand Mr. Roy is vehemently against that bill. I get it. I understand that he believes that the bill that Mike Lee and Ted Cruz didn't object to doesn't satisfy his ideological goals. I understand that. Yet, I suspect that the vast majority of the Republican Conference would pass that bill today if we had an opportunity to. The good news is that we hope to create that opportunity by ultimately defeating the previous question and enabling the House to be able to consider that bill. Spare us more debates on commemorative resolutions, and let's fund the government. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me first just say congratulations to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Roy) for congratulating himself. It is a special thing here in the House of Representatives. Apparently, if you work hard enough, you can introduce a resolution congratulating yourself and your colleagues for the resolutions or the bills that you have passed. It is a participation trophy, a Mike Johnson participation trophy, that my colleague from Texas is a proud recipient of along with the other members of the House Republican Conference. Madam Speaker, it has been 15 months now, 15 months since this Republican majority and the President were elected into office. For nearly a year and a half, Republicans have presided over what is now widely considered to be one of the least productive Congresses in the modern history of our country. Since President Trump took office, only 86 pieces of legislation have been signed into law. Of course, of those 86, many bills have harmed tragically, profoundly the American public. Fifteen million Americans have lost access to health insurance since President Trump took office. Millions of Americans are going hungry because of lost SNAP benefits that my colleagues are so proud to have enacted. The country is now involved in yet another deeply unpopular war in the Middle East. President Trump campaigned on lowering gas prices and no new wars, he said. Of course, that couldn't have been further from the truth. Last week I stood in this exact same spot and I posed a very simple question, Madam Speaker: Would Republicans continue to waste our time on self-congratulatory, commemorative, meaningless resolutions, saluting themselves, applauding themselves? Apparently, that was a rhetorical question. We have our answer. The answer is H. Res. 1182. I encourage everyone watching to go online and read the resolution that we are here to debate this week, ``recognizing the work of the House of Representatives in the 119th Congress.'' This is what Republicans choose to spend their time on: resolutions congratulating themselves, giving themselves a pat on the back, participation trophies. It is an utter absurd waste of time, and it is illogical. It is nonsensical that Republicans would choose to spend their time for the second week in a row on a resolution that does nothing, changes nothing, accomplishes nothing, but congratulating themselves for what they would describe as a job well done. They have the audacity to suggest that they are supporting rural communities. I represent a district that is one-third rural. Let me tell you, families are struggling in northern and western Colorado as a result of the policies that the Republican Conference have implemented, as a result of President Trump's reckless and extreme agenda. It is no wonder that President Trump is deeply unpopular, the most unpopular President in the modern history of our country. I simply say to you, Madam Speaker, that I suspect we will have some debate about the underlying bills that my colleagues have introduced and are asking this august Chamber to consider, bills that weaken a variety of different environmental standards, bills that weaken protections for endangered species. They are not the kind of matters that are coming up at my townhalls in Colorado. Perhaps my colleague from Texas has a different experience in his district. What I am confident of is that no citizen in our country, no Republican--I am not talking about the politicians here in Washington, D.C. I am talking about their voters--would think that it would be a prudent use of our time to pass self-congratulatory resolutions. Honestly, I hope if there are folks watching, Republicans watching this--I understand we will have principled disagreements about a wide variety of policy matters and proposals that this House ought to consider, but just understand something: They are squandering their majority. They are not here debating immigration or gas prices or healthcare costs or any number of priorities. They are not here debating legislation that, frankly, I am likely to oppose, but nonetheless would be legislation and priorities that Republican voters might care about. They are not here debating that. We are here wasting time handing out another participation trophy to the 218 Members of the House Republican Conference. Madam Speaker, I ask my friend, my colleague on the other side of the aisle, it may just be easier next time to put this into a press release. Put it into a letter. We will help you and that way we can get back to the business of the House. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE

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

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I wish to clarify something that the Speaker said. That is not the name of the bill. Just to be clear, I encourage anybody who is watching to go online and pull up the bill. It is, I think, about 350 pages. The one phrase that you will not find in the entirety of the bill is ``Working Families Tax Cuts,'' Madam Speaker. It is nowhere. I checked. I checked yesterday during the Committee on Rules. I checked again before I came to the floor just to be sure, so I don't know where you came up with that name, Madam Speaker. I am not even really sure who has come up with it in the Republican Conference. Somebody, a marketing guru in the Republican Conference I think convinced the Speaker, and I suppose said to him: ``Look, this bill is deeply unpopular. President Trump is deeply unpopular, more unpopular than any President in the modern history of our country. We have got to do something different, and I have got an idea. We will just come up with a new name for the bill; a new name, resolution honoring that new name that will convince them. I am sure that will get the American public on our side.'' Fascinating. Madam Speaker, week after week, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have opted to take up a variety of legislation. The one common thread is that it fails to meet the moment. Americans sent us here to work on the issues that they care most about, that have the most impact on their everyday lives: the rising affordability crisis, expanding access to affordable healthcare, protecting our environment and public resources; not to gut air pollution standards and pass commemorative resolutions patting themselves on the back. That is not how Congress should be spending its precious time. The bills before us do nothing to improve the lives of working families in our country. It is why I would encourage my colleagues to oppose the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bills. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Was that--

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am prepared to close, but I will say that I am doing this very begrudgingly because I was hoping that we might be able to have some colloquies with my colleague from New York with his colleagues on H. Res. 1156. I know how important this commemorative resolution is to the Republican Conference, and I would be loath to deprive my colleague from New York with the opportunity to have a fulsome debate on it. Is there no Republican in the House of Representatives who is willing to come down to the floor to extol the virtues of the big, beautiful bill--or the working families bill that they have renamed? None, Madam Speaker?

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, a lot of political rhetoric again. I think the American people know the facts. They know that the Senate passed a bill twice on a unanimous basis to fund DHS. It is not complicated. The United States Senate passed the bill. Not a single Senator objected. The United States Senate passed the bill again. Not a single Senator objected. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate, approved of this bill. They sent it here. It is sitting at the Clerk's desk. If we voted on it today, my guess is 90 percent of the House of Representatives would vote for it. The only reason we are not is because the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has decided we are not going to vote on it. That is it. The rest of it, they can try to confuse the American public and describe to them the play-by-play of the last 65 days. Again, it is not complicated. There is a bill sitting at the Clerk's desk to fund DHS that every Republican Senator, every Democratic Senator, and 90 percent of this body support. The only reason we are not voting on it is politics because Republican Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has decided that he won't allow it. That is it. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. We are grateful to her for her leadership.