U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representaitves
The House debates H.R. 2189, reclassifying less-lethal weapons like tasers to reduce legal barriers, despite bipartisan opposition citing loopholes for felons and domestic abusers—passed 233-185 amid claims of corporate influence (Axon) and misaligned public safety goals. Meanwhile, calls for ACA credit extensions highlight 85,000 Pennsylvanians losing coverage, while a caller blames federal agencies like ICE for immigration enforcement failures. A South Carolina rep accuses Putin of violating Trump-era promises, linking global unrest to U.S. accountability, before pivoting to warnings about "Thurnberg syndrome" driving anti-Western activism. The episode ends with Texas redistricting controversies, tariff critiques over fentanyl seizures, and a proposed 50-cent gas tax cap to address rising costs amid poor road conditions. [Automatically generated summary]
Holy God, how often we come to you asking for your protection, your support, your encouragement, and your strength for the day.
And again today, we pray for these things.
We pray that you will help us be on our guard against everything that is not of you, forswearing hatred and unrighteousness, and remaining alert when facing decisions that erode our character and undermine our best intentions.
We pray that you will help us stand firm in our faith, trusting in your intimate involvement in our lives and in your ultimate redemption of the many events that seem to test our souls.
We pray for courage when faced with situations that challenge us to demonstrate perseverance and integrity.
We pray for strength, not dominance and not victory, but the strength of conviction, a strength found only in your righteousness and made effective through your wisdom.
But perhaps the thing we are least inclined to pray for and the thing we most need is that you enable us to do all these things in love.
For love requires us to set aside all bitterness, anger, hurt, and self-righteousness, and to open our hearts to those with whom you have called us to serve.
The chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the House the approval thereof.
Pursuant to clause one of Rule One, the journal stands approved.
The Pledge of Allegiance will be led by the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Burch.
unidentified
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands for our nation under God and Christ with liberty and justice for all.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dear friend of mine, Diane Jordan.
She was the first black woman to serve on the Knox County Commission.
Diane served four terms from 1992 to 2007, was known for her passion for improving Knox County while wearing some really cool cowboy hats of hers.
That's one right there.
Diane grew up in our community and knew it better than anyone.
She was always serving, looking for ways to make it better.
In a time of great division in Knoxville, she was one of those that was always in the middle of it, trying to fix things with peaceful conversations, Mr. Speaker, something we don't see a lot of anymore.
She's known for her sayings about working together across the aisle to bring change to the people we represented as one.
We could all take a lesson from Diane, Mr. Speaker.
After her four terms, she continued public service through community philanthropy and mentoring other city officials, including my friend, former Knoxville Councilwoman Gwen McKenzie.
She leaves behind her husband of 41 years, Reverend John Jordan, eight kids, and more than 20 grandkids.
And she has always been in my prayers.
She was a dear friend.
And I remembered when my daddy died, she was extra kind to my mama.
And I always remember that.
And walking with her in the Martin Luther King Day parades, it was always the coldest day of the year, Mr. Speaker.
And every dadgum person knew her.
It was like walking with a rock star.
And she always made me feel very special.
And she will be missed, but I know she's with Jesus right now, and she's doing better than all of us.
Mr. Speaker, in celebration of Black History Month, I rise today to recognize extraordinary black luminaries from Central Florida for their work and impact on the community that I proudly represent.
Through tireless advocacy, they have strengthened our neighborhoods, expanded the opportunity for those too often left behind, and improved the lives of countless families across Orlando.
Admiral David Brewer, Alvin J. Cohens, Jennifer Desile-Herler, Chet Glover, Florida Supreme Court Justice James Perry, Ann Perryville, Lisa Williams, the late great state senator Geraldine Thompson, and the late Eatonville Mayor Eddie Cole.
Today and always, we celebrate their achievements and continue to honor black excellence, not just black history, but also the history we're continuing to create.
Today, I rise in support of my bill, the Bridge for Young Unset Alzheimer's Disease Act.
Right now, Americans diagnosed with Alzheimer's after age 65 receive immediate Medicare coverage.
But for those diagnosed before 65, despite facing the same devastating disease, are forced to wait nearly 29 months for the exact same care.
For the 200,000 Americans living with young unset Alzheimer's, that delay is devastating.
The Bridge for Yod Act fixes this gap by eliminating the Medicare waiting period for those with young unset Alzheimer's.
Early access to care matters.
This disease progresses very quickly.
Many patients lose the ability to work or support themselves long before coverage kicks in, where families are left to shoulder an additional $20,000 a year in out-of-pocket costs.
Congress has acted before for rapidly progressing disease like ALS.
We should do the same here.
As one of my constituents put it, this bill puts health and dignity first, and I urge my colleagues to support the Bridge for Yoda Act, and I yield back my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize East Fullerton Little League's 70th birthday.
Little League's mission is to instill on children the values of sportsmanship, honesty, loyalty, and courage, aiming to produce well-adjusted, stronger, and happier children.
The hundreds of volunteers who take the job of running a Little League are usually the unsung heroes.
And that's why I'm standing here today to recognize the Little League volunteers who have stepped up to the plate to demonstrate benefits and values of volunteering, family, and sportsmanship.
Let's follow their example, the example of our Little League parents and volunteers, by making a pledge to support our youth and our community and support the people who spend countless hours teaching America's favorite pastime.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the heartbreaking and inspiring story of the Santa Clarita Lady Flyers, a 12 and under hockey team that plays in my district.
While on the way to the Western Girls Hockey League playoffs, a snowplow collided head-on with one of their team vans, injuring five players and killing Manny Lorenzana.
We remember Manny as a loving dad to Brodie, an excellent partner to April, and a talented tattoo artist.
After such a tragic event, the team rallied together and made the decision all on their own to play on for Manny and for their injured teammates.
Amazingly, in the face of hardship that came far too early for those so young, the Santa Clarita Flyers ended up taking home the championship after a nail-biting final that ended 1-0 in overtime.
Here is what I want this amazing team and their families to know.
The entire Santa Clarita community has your back, and we are deeply proud of you.
I can't wait to cheer you all on at the next home game next season.
I rise today to tell the American people exactly what their tax dollars are being used for, imprisoning children, even infants.
Last month, DHS agents detained a sick seven-year-old and her parents in an urgent care parking lot while they were trying to get her medical attention.
Then they sent that child to the nation's largest family detention facility, recently reopened by Trump.
A facility where families report there is contaminated food, limited access to clean water, and where there have been confirmed measles cases.
Your tax dollars are funding this.
Last Friday, I traveled to Texas to fight to bring Deanna and her family home to Oregon.
I'm grateful that Deanna is home, safe in Gresham.
But this never should have happened in the first place.
It is immoral to jail children, and it should enrage every American that their tax dollars are being used to do so.
Congress controls the power of the purse, and it is past time to reassert that authority and end this horrific practice.
We must draw a bright red line.
Taxpayer dollars cannot be used to imprison children.
Senate 3705, an act to provide for the creation of a congressional time capsule and commemoration of the semi-quincentennial of the United States and for other purposes.
Union calendar number 403, H.R. 2189, a bill to modernize federal firearms laws to account for advancements in technology and less than lethal weapons and for other purposes.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1057, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-18 is adopted, and the bill as amended is considered as read.
The bill as amended shall be debatable for one hour, equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees, and the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald, and the lady from Georgia, Mrs. McBath.
The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Smith, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Thompson, each will control 15 minutes.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Fitzgerald.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2189.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 2189, the Law Enforcement Innovate to De-escalate Act.
This bill will put life-saving, less lethal technology in the hands of more law enforcement and public safety officers.
When the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted more than 50 years ago, it was not written with the intent to regulate less lethal projectile devices such as tasers.
Unfortunately, if a taser or other device uses an explosive propellant to discharge the projectile, the ATF classifies it as a firearm.
This makes it more difficult for law enforcement and public safety officers to obtain and use these devices.
For starters, many states prohibit public safety officers from using firearms.
In at least 12 states, correctional officers are unable to carry firearms in the course of their official duties.
Many state laws also prohibit or restrict the use of firearms in schools, hospitals, and meaning security officers would be unable to purchase these devices if they're needed.
For police departments, law enforcement officers can be unfairly subjected to higher levels of liability exposure for discharging a quote-unquote firearm than a less lethal device.
This includes my own state of Wisconsin, which includes in its definition of deadly force the discharge of a firearm.
Mr. Speaker, that is why the Law Enforcement Innovate to De-escalate Act is both necessary and important.
H.R. 2189 makes a small but important change to the Gun Control Act's definition of a firearm to appropriately define the less lethal projectile device.
It does so by instituting a five-part test, ensuring only devices that are truly less lethal will pass ATF scrutiny.
It also exempts these devices from the firearm excise tax.
The simple logic being that police departments and manufacturers should no longer be paying a firearm tax on a device that no longer is classified as a firearm.
It was never intended to apply to them in the first place, and it should not apply to them now.
By making these simple changes, we are equipping our law enforcement and public safety officers with the best tools to keep our communities safe and our first responders out of harm's way.
Innovation should be rewarded, not stifled, and this bill does just that.
I want to thank my colleagues, Congressman Correa, Congressman Schweikert, Congressman Stanton, all the others that have been supportive of this for their leadership on this issue over the last two Congresses.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2189, the so-called Law Enforcement Innovate to De-escalate Act.
Law enforcement officers serve a critical role in promoting public safety.
That is why we must give them the tools to do their job effectively and safely.
But contrary to what so many of my colleagues have been told, H.R. 2189 does nothing to help law enforcement officers.
In fact, it would put our law enforcement officers and so many others in great danger by giving dangerous people easy access to serious weapons.
By changing the definition of firearm, H.R. 2189 would create dangerous new loopholes in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act, exempting so-called less than lethal weapons from our gun laws, including those that require firearms to be traceable, detectable by security equipment, and not available to prohibited purchasers, like felons, fugitives, and domestic abusers.
These exemptions would allow these weapons, which can be deadly, to be sold to anyone, including dangerous people, without having to undergo a background check.
Law enforcement has no need for this exemption.
They are already exempt from many gun laws and already use all kinds of weapons, including those covered by this bill, without any legal obstacles.
In fact, police departments in all 50 states already use these tasers.
We also know that state and local corrections officers are armed with tasers within prisons and jails across the country.
Let's be clear.
This bill is designed to increase civilian purchases of these weapons.
And we know this because it includes an exemption from the NFA excise tax, which law enforcement already does not pay.
More than three years ago, prosecutors and legal experts at the Department of Justice sounded the alarm when they reviewed a prior version of this bill.
These experts all agreed that this bill would endanger our officers and communities, and I quote, weakening their efforts to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous persons, end quote.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives warned, and I'll quote again, these weapons could be used against law enforcement, security personnel, or the public, creating an increased risk of harm to public safety.
They also would not be traceable if used in a crime, end quote.
If this bill were truly about helping law enforcement, Republicans would have taken this feedback from the DOJ and the ATF and revised this bill, but they didn't.
The bill before us today poses the same risk to public safety.
Many of my colleagues share my commitment to making sure law enforcement has all the tools that they need to keep themselves and our communities safe.
Some of them co-sponsored this legislation because they initially believed this bill was a genuine effort to do that.
They have since learned the truth.
Some joined Congressman Thompson's amendment, which would ensure that less-than-lethal weapons are not considered firearms only when they are used by law enforcement officers acting in their official capacity, addressing the alleged purpose of this legislation without creating a dangerous loophole.
And Republicans rejected that amendment.
Now that these members who once co-sponsored this bill see that this bill does not help law enforcement and will in fact endanger police and many others, they are now opposing this bill.
We must continue providing the resources and support that strengthen officer and community safety, not undermine them by removing the safeguards that keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous and violent criminals.
We need to be preventing violence.
I urge all of my colleagues to join me in opposing this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind members that the bill itself has just a ton of support to include the Fraternal Order of Police, major county sheriffs' associations, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement, NOBLE, Hispanic American Police Command Officers and their Associations, Patrol Officers Research Association of California, and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association.
So again, I think there's a ton of support out there, and there's actually a real need and a number of requests for this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to recognize my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Correa, for two minutes.
I rise today in strong support of the Law Enforcement Innovative De-escalation Act.
Simply put, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will save lives.
It is supported, as my colleague has said, by an unprecedented historic coalition, 95 bipartisan co-sponsors across 35 states, support from the Fraternal Order of Police, Major County Sheriffs, Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, Peace Officers Research Association of California, African American Mayors Association, Moms Against Police Brutality,
and the Prince Jones Jr. Foundation.
This collaboration, this coalition of law enforcement leaders and community justice advocates doesn't happen by accident.
It's because this legislation is sound policy balanced and is needed.
Modern, less than lethal devices, like the latest taser systems, fully integrate body-worn cameras, automatically capturing and improving oversight.
These tools reduce the risk and increase transparency, expanding the evidence record around use of force incidents.
It provides clarity for agencies, manufacturers, and regulators without, let me repeat, without weakening gun laws.
I rise to strongly oppose the Law Enforcement Innovate to Deescalate Act, a very disingenuous title for a bill that doesn't mention law enforcement through the text of the bill.
This bill does weaken gun laws in this country.
This bill will lead to more ghost guns being put across this country.
I promise you, within weeks of this being passed, files will be online for people to be able to 3D print just the few parts that will be needed to transform a taser that uses gunpowder to a gun that's going to be able to shoot bullets.
And then within months, people will be able to purchase the same parts online or in their local gun store.
The sponsor of this bill says that it makes it possible for law enforcement to obtain tasers.
They don't need this bill to do that.
And in fact, this bill isn't even tailored specifically to law enforcement.
It changes gun laws in this country.
Law enforcement uses tasers in all 50 states.
Gun violence is already the leading cause of death for children in our country.
This Congress does not need to be in the business of weakening the laws that we do have, but we do need to be in the business of doing what we need to do to end gun violence in this country.
I urge my colleagues to vote no, and I yield back.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind members again that a lot of the accusations that this will create other avenues for individuals to get firearms, it's just not true.
To be classified as a less lethal device under this bill, the device may not accept firearm ammunition.
I don't know how much clearer that can be.
There are no firearm magazines involved with these weapons at all, and they do not have high-velocity projectiles.
So there's a lot of, I think, scare tactics being used to try and paint this as it's being extended to other firearms.
It is not.
This would also prevent these ideas from, I think, taking hold amongst discussions about ghost guns, which is something that is out there on the street.
Any weapon that also has kits that can be converted to a firearm doesn't apply to them.
This bill also requires ATF to deny classification of any device that could be readily modified into a firearm.
So I know there's a lot of hearsay, a lot of thoughts about where this could go in the future, but quite honestly, that is not the way this bill was drafted, and it is not going to lend itself to be used that way.
Mr. Speaker, thank you, and I want to thank the distinguished gentlelady from Georgia for her extraordinary leadership for gun safety and for public safety in America.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would rip a dangerous new loophole in the Gun Control Act by changing the definition of firearm throughout the entire criminal code to exclude from coverage certain less than lethal but still highly dangerous weapons such as tasers, which have been identified as a contributing factor in more than 500 deaths throughout the United States of America.
This bill would exempt these weapons, which are currently classified as firearms, from all regulation under all federal firearm laws, and these weapons would be exempted from the laws regardless of who uses, purchases, possesses, or manufactures them.
So 20 million people who are presently not allowed to possess or buy firearms in the country, convicted domestic abusers, convicted felons in every state, fugitives and other prohibited purchasers would legally be able to buy these dangerous weapons like tasers that are designed to incapacitate their targets.
So a convicted domestic felon who has been deprived of his right to have firearms because he's been proven to be a danger to people in his family, in his home, to his wife, to his girlfriend, would be able to go out and get a taser.
And they'd be able to go and get that taser without going through a single background check.
They would just be able to go get it.
The bill exempts these weapons from the requirement that they have a serial number and that they be traceable so that law enforcement can identify their owners if they're used in violent crimes.
It would also exempt them from the Undetectable Firearms Act, which requires that firearms be detectable by metal detectors and x-ray machines used at airports.
This detection element is key to preventing weapons from getting where they shouldn't be and preventing serious crimes.
So if the bill becomes law, nothing would stop a convicted felon or a convicted domestic violence abuser from purchasing an undetectable taser and smuggling that weapon past security onto an airplane, onto a school area, indeed into the Capitol, unbeknownst to anyone before it's too late.
The bill would make everybody less safe.
Supporters say it's needed so law enforcement can use these less than lethal weapons.
But 18,000 law enforcement agencies are already exempt from many of the provisions of this act and are already using taser technologies.
Everybody knows that police have access to tasers.
Police departments in all 50 states are using tasers today.
Likewise, the tax exemption in this bill does nothing for law enforcement agencies either, because they already purchased these weapons completely free of the excise tax.
The combination of these exemptions is no accident.
They do nothing for law enforcement.
They both provide unfettered, even tax-free access to dangerous weapons to civilians, including at least 20 million who shouldn't have them and wouldn't have them under current law.
Supporters argue the change is needed because of the classification of these weapons as firearms may result in the use of the weapon being considered deadly force, even though the device is designed to be less than lethal.
Well, we've been asking for years, and they cannot provide us a single case where this problem exists.
In fact, courts have readily distinguished between deadly force and intermediate force in cases involving law enforcement.
They don't have a single case.
They just say, well, some state's attorney somewhere heard from another lawyer they were nervous about it.
I mean, come on, that is not how we should be legislating in the Congress of the United States.
Congressman Mike Thompson and 18 of our colleagues submitted an amendment to ensure that less-than-lethal weapons are not considered firearms only when they're used by law enforcement in their official capacity, which is purportedly what this is about.
But they rejected it.
The Republicans didn't want to hear it because we know that, in fact, there's a commercial purpose that pervades this entire legislation.
It's all about opening up a huge new market to sell tasers, including to millions of people who nobody should want to have them.
I've repeatedly supported and will continue to support legislation to give law enforcement every tool and training they need to keep us safe, but I've got to oppose this legislation that could put law enforcement officers and the rest of us in danger.
I stand with the huge number of gun safety groups working to combat gun violence and domestic violence who strongly oppose and condemn this legislation.
I urge my colleagues to join us in opposing H.R. 2189.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the ranking member that all U.S. states and territories already criminalize misuse of less than lethal devices through existing assault and battery laws.
And 42 states have explicit statutory definitions for less than lethal devices.
And of those 42 states, 34 already prohibit possession by violent felons and domestic abusers, impose age restrictions, and impose criminal penalties for misuse.
Several states even require permits or licenses or background check to purchase or possess these devices.
So this is not something that the state legislatures aren't aware of.
As a matter of fact, I've said before, I think that there may be some state legislatures that will react to the legislation before us today and possibly come up with other items that states have already put in place that probably will support law enforcement in this area.
So suggestions that the bill will put these devices in the hands of violent felons or the general public, I think, are blown way out of proportion.
And that H.R. 2189 preserves state regulation on these devices.
It does not weaken existing safeguards against misuse and reserve.
Thank you, and I rise in opposition to this bill because it would make us less safe.
Police already have access to less than lethal weapons like tasers, so they don't need a change in the law.
That's not an excuse for changing the law.
And this bill expands access to dangerous prohibited individuals by stripping away federal safeguards.
Tasers may not shoot bullets, but they are still dangerous in the wrong hands.
And this bill would mean that anyone can buy them without a background check, including people convicted of serious violent crimes and including domestic abusers with restraining orders against them.
This bill would also eliminate serialization, making these dangerous devices untraceable.
H.R. 2189 is a reckless expansion of the gun industry.
Because we all care about public safety, I urge my colleagues to stand with me and my colleagues in opposition to this dangerous piece of legislation.
You know, when I first heard about this bill, I thought it was very interesting that my Republican colleagues had this newfound conviction in helping to prevent law enforcement doing bad things to people and working to de-escalate law enforcement.
I mean, I remember, you know, I am someone who has been a victim of the abuse of law enforcement, and I just haven't heard my colleagues ever talk about it.
And so I came at this bill skeptically and looked at it.
And it turns out the bill itself was pretty much written by a corporation, Axon, that wants to sell a new type of taser.
Let's be clear with everyone.
You can buy a taser right now.
Everyone watching, you can go online and look at the fact that you can buy, you can buy it on Amazon, you can buy a taser right now.
But this has to do with new technology that uses gunpowder.
This is the reason the ATF decided to regulate this years ago.
And so this doesn't have to do with de-escalating law enforcement, which has tasers in all 50 states.
This has to do with selling more weapons and firearms.
I just remind the members, we have 22 Democrat co-sponsors on this bill.
And I'm sure that those members are hearing from their own local law enforcement.
I'm sure they're hearing from their chiefs of police.
I'm sure they're hearing from their sheriffs.
I'm sure that they're hearing from some private security firms that want to be able to access this technology that's been there for some time, has been proven to be a de-escalator in these very tense situations that law enforcement find themselves in.
So I'll just say, Wisconsin, my state, defines deadly force in its use of force policy as the intentional use of a firearm or other instrument that creates a high probability of death or great bodily harm.
So that is what we're trying to overcome is this definition that does not fit this new technology.
Wisconsin already regulates the use of tasers and stun guns at the state level.
You must be 18 plus to own a stun gun or taser, and you must be 21 and possess a valid concealed carry permit to carry in the public.
So this is not going to be unchecked.
There are absolutely going to be legislatures that will revisit this.
And it's currently felony to carry a stun gun or taser in public without a valid permit.
And it's illegal to possess stun guns or tasers for those who had prior felony convictions.
So a lot of this has already been thought out.
It's law enforcement that thinks about these items each and every day.
It's those in leadership positions that think about these items.
And we're responding to that.
That's simply what we're doing here.
So once again, I think it's a great bill.
I hope that members support it.
It sounds like it's going to be what I would expect, a solid bipartisan vote today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2189.
Let's get honest about what this bill does and doesn't do.
It does not require training.
It does not set standards.
It does not improve accountability.
And it does not apply only to law enforcement.
It does carve out a sweeping exemption in our federal firearms laws and makes it easier for dangerous people to access dangerous weapons with fewer safeguards.
So, you said, oh, supporters keep saying this bill is about helping law enforcement, but if it were true, the bill would mention law enforcement, and it doesn't.
Law enforcement agencies already have the ability to procure less lethal tools and are already exempt from many federal firearm requirements.
Let's talk about who opposes this bill.
It is opposed by Brady, Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords, New Town Action Alliance, Sandy Hook Promise, Jewish Women's International, Catholics for Family Peace, Illinois Accountability Initiative, Just Solutions, Legal Momentum, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2189 does nothing to help law enforcement who already use these weapons in all 50 states.
It does not provide any new tools or training that would reduce police shootings or promote the safety of officers or the public.
Instead, it makes dangerous weapons widely available to everyone, including those who should not have them.
And it allows those weapons to be untraceable, undetectable by equipment, and sold to anyone without a background check.
This bill is especially dangerous for those experiencing domestic violence since this bill provides easy legal access to weapons that are designed to control and incapacitate their target and can be deadly.
Groups that combat domestic violence and gun violence and who support public safety all oppose this legislation.
I ask unanimous consent to submit these letters into the record.
Democrats will continue to support law enforcement innovation and the adoption of tools that keep everyone safer.
But we must oppose this misguided legislation that does not promote innovation or de-escalation and will only put our law enforcement and those experiencing domestic abuse and others in danger.
Mr. Speaker, can I first ask unanimous consent to enter the CBO score into the record of the bill?
Mr. Speaker, I'm also prepared to close.
I'd just like to spend what time I have left responding to a few points made by my colleagues.
First of all, the U.S. states and territories already criminalize the misuse of less lethal devices through existing assault and battery laws.
34 states also restrict possession by violent felons and domestic abusers.
And let me repeat that it is illegal for violent felons and domestic abusers to own or misuse less lethal devices.
Our bill does not change that.
H.R. 2189 preserves state regulation and, in fact, may invite state legislatures to adjust their statutes to harmonize with federal law.
And second, the bill will not create ghost guns or other unregulated firearms.
The five-part test in this bill would sufficiently protect against deregulation, and any product submitted to ATF for classification will be scrutinized under the ATF's existing classification process.
There is no loophole.
This fear-mongering by colleagues on the other side of the aisle this morning is nothing more than that.
And finally, police do, in fact, have difficulty obtaining these devices.
State and local police departments in states like California, New York, and Texas will not buy the newest TASER models due to the increased liability.
This is not some hypothetical.
Unless we make this change, state and local police departments will have to settle for weaker, less accurate TASER models due to this misclassification.
Gentlemen, yields, the on the judiciary has expired.
The chair now recognizes the committee on ways from the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Smith, and the gentleman from California, Mr. Thompson, for 15 minutes.
The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Smith, is now recognized.
I rise today in support of H.R. 2189, which includes the Innovate Less Lethal to De-escalate Tax Modernization Act, led by Congressman David Schweiker.
This legislation shines a bright light on how our laws actually work in the real world, where outdated policy can get in the way of safer outcomes.
At the end of the day, this is about encouraging tools that help de-escalate conflict and reduce the chances of serious injury or loss of life.
Across the country, law enforcement officers are asked to resolve dangerous situations every day with the least harm possible.
Less than lethal devices like tasers and similar technologies exist for that exact purpose.
But right now, some of these tools are treated in the tax code like traditional firearms.
That means they can face extra taxes and regulatory burdens that were never designed with such tools in mind.
The result is higher cost, more red tape, and slower adoption of technology that can actually make encounters safer for both officers and civilians.
This bill fixes that mismatch.
It makes clear that less than lethal weapons such as tasers should not be taxed like firearms.
It gives clarity to manufacturers, certainty to regulators, and ultimately better access to life-saving tools for law enforcement and the communities that they serve.
I want to thank Representative Schweikert for his incredible leadership on this bill that keeps our laws in pace with real-world solutions that reduce harm and protects our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, the H.R. 2189, the Taser Bill.
And I just want to mention that the bill doesn't mention tasers anywhere in the bill other than in the title.
I'm a supporter of innovation, I'm a supporter of de-escalation, and I'm a supporter of tasers.
My son's a deputy sheriff.
I support giving him and all law enforcement every tool needed to keep them and the people they serve safe.
But let me be clear, this bill does nothing to help law enforcement access tasers.
The fact is, this bill recklessly and needlessly weakens both the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act.
Under current law, tasers are not regulated by the National Firearms Act.
That's the law that regulates especially dangerous devices like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.
Under current law, law enforcement in their official capacity is not subject to the background check requirement in the Gun Control Act.
That's a law that prevents felons and domestic abusers from buying weapons.
And under the current law, contrary to what the chairman just mentioned, law enforcement is not subject to the excise tax for firearms or for tasers.
Instead of helping law enforcement access tasers, this bill weakens a law which regulates machine guns and opens the door to another flood of unregulated, deadly ghost guns in our community.
I don't know one person in law enforcement that wants more untraceable ghost guns on our street.
Mr. Speaker, it's unclear what barriers law enforcement face to use long-range tasers.
I've never received a complaint from law enforcement in my district, nor have I seen any reports suggesting that this is a problem.
Long-range tasers are already used by law enforcement.
And listen to this, all 50 states and in all 50 states, law enforcement pays zero excise taxes on these devices.
And it's important to know that long-range tasers can already be legally purchased by civilians.
All they need to do is pass a background check.
I support tasers.
I support law enforcement.
This bill does not mention tasers once, and law enforcement is only mentioned in the title.
I don't know what they're trying to do, but it looks to me like this might just be the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.
We all go through this where you have your friends on the opposite side who say things and you go, wow, I can't find that in this piece of legislation.
But, you know, I guess we're all sometimes in the pandering business.
Look, about a year ago in my community, we had a woman who came running out of her house holding a knife.
She was having some sort of horrible mental health issue, and she's charging a police officer with a knife.
Before this type of technology, she would have lost her life because a traditional firearm would have been used.
They used a non-lethal.
And the reason it doesn't say taser in the language is because it's designed, who knows what next year's innovation is going to be.
That's the whole point.
Can you have a society where through the use of technology people don't die?
Why do the bill, why do this portion of the bill for those of us in the Ways and Means Committee?
Okay, let's go back about 100 years ago.
Excise tax.
You have an 11% on the cartridge.
You have 10% on the unit itself.
You collect the excise tax, then you have to go back to the tax-exempt government agency, have them fill out their paperwork, submit it over, then turn back to refund it.
We're just trying to clean up the bureaucracies that's 100 years out of date.
It's not that hard.
Make up your mind.
Do you want broader adoption of non-lethal technology so our brothers and sisters don't die?
Think of some of the crappy things that have happened in our society over the last 10, 20 years because of the discharge of a firearm in law enforcement.
It does not need to be that way.
This is actually the second or third rewrite of this bill as we tried to make the anti-firearm groups happy.
Turns out we would meet their requests and then they would change their standard.
The problem, the disagreement kept changing.
I don't know what the motivation is for playing games, but we bring this to the floor with honest hearts.
We want our brothers and sisters not to die in this moment of violence.
And you would think there'd be this almost giddy optimism that technology is bringing us here.
And instead, it continues to be the moving excuse of why to oppose the bill.
We're barely two months into this new year, and yet we've already had 35 mass shootings devastating communities across the country.
If only two or three people are killed, it hardly makes national news anymore.
But we can be sure that after every major incident, Republicans will offer their thoughts and prayers and then proceed to obstruct anyone who wants to do anything to increase gun safety.
Instead of addressing the serious tragedy, the illness that plagues our country with gun violence, Republicans today propose a new loophole, a dangerous loophole for so-called less than lethal devices.
And once they are no longer considered federal firearms under the federal definition, protective rules go away.
That means no background checks.
That means no serial number on the equipment so that the police can trace it if a criminal is using it.
I have great respect for the gentleman from Arizona, but using his example of that woman coming at a police officer with a knife, this bill does nothing for the police officer.
He can get full access to less than lethal weapons now.
But the woman, if she had a mental health problem and was barred from a federal firearm, she could now go buy one of these less than lethal devices.
In fact, it's not just one woman in Arizona.
There are 5 million convicted felons in this country.
There are 7 million people with mental health conditions, all barred from getting a federal firearm.
And this dangerous loophole is designed to assure that they now will see a giant sign saying, come and get your weapon, because they no longer will be prohibited from getting one of these weapons, while the police officers, the law enforcement officers across this country get no benefit.
In fact, their job is made more difficult because these weapons can no longer be traced when used by one of these convicted felons who chooses to engage in other criminal activity.
These less than lethal devices, as they have been labeled, include tasers, and there is one story after another, horrible story with details of criminals that have used tasers as they raped and abused their victims.
Beanbag rounds.
We had those used in Austin against a number of teenagers.
They may be called less than lethal, but they required multiple life-saving conditions, life-saving surgeries to bring them back to decent health and then with serious disability.
And with homemade alterations which can occur to these less than lethal weapons, they can become more rapid fire.
They can become much more dangerous and still untraceable weapons.
There are so many things that we could be doing in this Congress concerning gun safety.
Mr. Thompson has had a universal background check, not to deny anyone, but to assure that everyone who is not really with a mental health condition or some other condition, someone you want getting a gun, to assure the safety through that background check, something that's been widely supported by law enforcement.
There is the concern about the weapons of war that are brought onto our streets and kill multiple people.
There are a number of reasonable measures that have been advocated by one group after another across this country to make our streets safer, to have parents, when they send their children off to school, know they will come home and won't have to spend all their time fearing the kind of violence that we saw in Uvalde, Texas that led to the deaths of so many little children.
These are things the Congress could be working on right now and instead this loophole that will allow more people who should not have a gun because of their criminal history or their mental health condition will allow them to get that weapon.
Real public safety means fewer weapons on our streets, not more loopholes.
The lady from New York is recognized for three minutes.
unidentified
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
It's about time that we support the Law Enforcement Innovate to De-escalate Act.
This crucial legislation ensures that law enforcement offices have access to the best less than legal technologies for de-escalation.
Under current law, certain new less-than-lethal technologies are included under the National Firearms Act, NFA, a law designed to regulate firearms.
However, due to the definition of firearms under the NFA, this includes less than lethal devices such as the new Taser 10.
This bill will modernize the NFA to include less than lethal category to ensure that devices like the Taser 10 are not designated to be lethal, are not included under the NFA's taxes and regulations designed for firearms for use by municipalities, not individuals.
I'm honored to be a co-sponsor of this bill, along with, I think, at least 22 common sense Democrats and strongly support its passage through the House Ways and Means Committee.
However, I'm disappointed that so many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to support this common sense bill.
Instead, they want to politicize and talk about completely unrelated matters, while some on the other side resort to fear-mongering, House Republicans.
And I said, 22, I believe, common sense Democrats are committed to ensuring law enforcement has the tools and resources they need to keep our communities safe.
Every major police organization is supporting the passage of this legislation, including the Fraternal Order of Police, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, and the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives.
This is a pro-police, pro-community, and life-saving piece of legislation.
I urge the Senate to vote on this bill expediently.
And I also want to thank my colleague, Representative Fitzgerald, Speaker Johnson, Leader Scalise, and of course, Chairman Smith once again for bringing this bill to the floor.
For the past year, Republicans have done nothing to address rising grocery prices, rising energy prices, and rising health care prices.
But what is the one thing they are willing to do?
Making tasers more accessible to dangerous people.
It is unbelievable.
On January 21st, 2023, my hometown of Monterey Park, California suffered a mass shooting that killed 11 of our neighbors.
It remains the deadliest mass shooting in Los Angeles County's history.
Monterey Park and every community across this country deserves to be safe from violence, whether from guns, tasers, or anything else.
But Republicans are working to make our communities less safe by handing over access of weapons to individuals we know should not have them and making them far harder for law enforcement to track.
We should be focused on keeping our communities safe, not voting to flood our streets with even more weapons.
Mr. Speaker, you absolutely cannot make this stuff up that you're hearing from the other side of the aisle.
When they talk about the affordability crisis, let's talk about the affordability crisis.
Gas prices are the lowest they've been in five years.
Inflation is the lowest it's been in four years.
Just in the first year of President Trump, wages grew more than all four years under Joe Biden.
We are in an inflation crisis that President Trump inherited because of the spending spree, the $10 trillion spending spree that the Democrats did when they controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Stauber.
As one of just a few people that have represented their constituents in Congress, I was one of the few that wore the uniform.
I was one of the few that was shot while off duty.
I was one of the few that had a gun malfunction when it was pointed at my head.
I was one of the few that ran into the fire.
I was one of the few that was on our tactical response team.
And when they talk about tasers, it is a tool that we can use in law enforcement to save lives.
Not only the officer, not only the subject or the suspect, but bystanders.
For my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to try to defend the philosophy that we don't need those or this piece of legislation that involves the tax code isn't legit is just atrocious.
Here's a list of people that support it.
The African American Mayors Association, the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, the Fraternal Order of Police, Major County Sheriffs of America, Peace Officers Research Association of California, and so many others.
You can ask every officer, law enforcement law enforcement officer on the streets of America whether they want this to move forward and pass and become law.
The answer is yes, because the technology continues to grow and grow.
When I first started in law enforcement, we had one shot at the taser.
When we would cross-draw, flip the switch up, bring it up, taser, taser, taser.
We only had one.
Later on in my career, we had two options.
This gives us 10, in some cases, 10 options to subdue a subject that is violent and is going to either harm the officer, bystanders, or more importantly, themselves.
Cross-draw, flip up, taser, taser, taser.
This is a good bill.
And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they know it's a good bill.
In fact, the lead, one of the co-sponsors, won't even come and talk about it because his majority, Mr. Speaker, doesn't want it.
And yet, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle won't support something that defends the cops, helps them with another tool on their tool belt to make sure they're safe, the subject is safe, and any bystanders.
It is unconscionable.
This is a great bill, and I wholeheartedly support it.
And I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle won't yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank the gentleman from Arizona for making my point.
You know, if it's about the tax code, let's address that.
That's not what this bill does.
This opens a huge loophole that will allow people who are a danger to themselves and others to have access to devices that none of us believe that they should have access to.
If it was all about what Mr. Swiker said, why didn't you take my amendment that I filed that would have taken the ghost gun loophole issue off the table?
If it's about the tax code, let's deal with the tax code.
But as Mr. Doggett made the argument about domestic abusers, these are people who perpetrate the most heinous of crimes.
And that's why when this House, Senate, passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, we closed the boyfriend loophole to ensure that abusive boyfriends were blocked from accessing firearms the same way we block abusive husbands from getting their hands on weapons.
The Gun Control Act is the federal statue that requires background checks which block these abusers from getting their hands on firearms.
This bill weakens the Gun Control Act and would allow convicted domestic abusers to purchase long-range tasers and ghost guns.
That's not what my colleagues on the other side are suggesting that they want to do.
So why don't we deal with the tax issue?
We can do it.
The chairman of the tax of the Ways and Means Committee is right here.
That's an easy one for us to fix.
But don't create a loophole big enough to drive a truckload of ghost guns through.
Also, the issue of domestic abusers, the idea that this body would make it easier for domestic abusers to get new technology in TASERS is just beyond explanation.
We should be extremely worried about these people getting this type of technology.
And then for folks who make the argument that people are afraid they want to have TASER technology, the newest TASER technology to keep themselves safe in the civilian space, I understand that.
And they are not precluded from being able to purchase and have this new technology in TASERS.
They just have to get a background check to make sure they aren't domestic abusers, to make sure they're not prohibited individuals who couldn't otherwise get firearms.
This bill does a lot more than the proponents are suggesting that it does.
If in fact they want to deal with the issues that they stood on this floor today and talked about, all good issues.
Everybody will agree with that.
Let's do it.
Let's draw the bill to deal with those issues.
And we could have done that had the majority accepted my bill that would have closed the ghost gun loophole, but they chose not to.
So if they really want to make this bill do what they're claiming, let's write a bill that does that.
Mr. Speaker, based on the comments that we've been hearing from the other side, it is proof that they didn't take the time to read the seven-page bill that we are debating on the floor because the accusations, the comments you've heard are clearly not identifiable of the legislation that is being debated.
This bill comes down to basic common sense.
Our tax code should not put unnecessary barriers in front of technologies designed to reduce harm.
Representative Schweikert's legislation helps align our tax policy with our public safety goals.
It supports innovation.
It encourages less lethal means of law enforcement and removes an outdated burden that never made much sense to begin with.
When Congress has the chance to make a straightforward fix that can contribute to safer communities and smarter policies, we should take it.
I commend Congressman Schweikert for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
I congratulate 22 brave Democrats who believe in less lethal force by sponsoring this legislation.
Those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will please rise.
A sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Members will record their votes by electronic device.
This is a 15-minute vote.
unidentified
And the House now voting on final passage of a bill that would exempt certain devices from being classified as firearms under federal law.
They include stun guns, tasers, pepper spray, beanbag guns, and rubber bullets, which are often used for crowd control.
Under this bill, such devices include those that do not shoot and cannot easily be modified to shoot ammunition that's commonly used in handguns, rifles, or shotguns.
They are subjected to certain federal legal restrictions and the federal excise tax on sales.
This is the first firearm bill that the House has taken up this year.
If passed, it heads to the Senate for consideration.
Also on the C-SPAN networks this morning, we have several events looking at immigration enforcement.
Over on C-SPAN 2, a live House committee meeting is underway with local police and the attorney representing the family of the woman killed in Minneapolis by ICE agents.
And on C-SPAN 3, a Senate committee now hearing more about ICE and DHS operations from Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison as well as federal officials.
And we heard earlier this morning from White House Border Czar Tom Homan.
You can find his remarks on our app, C-SPANNOW and at c-SPAN.org.
SEC's Changing Approach00:15:24
unidentified
On the other side of the Capitol, the Senate gavels in in about 40 minutes, still working to fund the Department of Homeland Security ahead of tomorrow night's midnight deadline when the agency's funding runs out.
Several dozen lawmakers will be missing the Munich Security Conference due to the standoff on DHS funding.
Punch Bowl News reporting the White House has sent text of a counteroffer to Democrats' demands.
The Democrats still reviewing that offer.
While we wait for members to cast their votes, we'll continue our live coverage from Capitol Hill.
Take you to the Senate Banking Committee where the chair of the SEC, Paul Atkins, is testifying at the oversight hearing.
I think that's an important part of what's broken about the current definition.
And my IMSA, for short, act really does put us in a position to expand the definition of accredited investor, opening the door to investment opportunities for Americans based on their knowledge and qualifications and not just how much money they have.
Chair Atkins, what is the SEC doing to expand the accredited investor definition and more broadly, ensure that it does not take wealth to build wealth?
unidentified
Well, thank you, Senator.
I really agree with your points.
And so I've been now at the SEC three times over the last 35 years.
And each time this has been an issue that's being debated.
And so I think it is time, and as you've put in your bill, to consider other alternatives.
Why should a professor making $100,000 a year who's an economist or whatever, finance professor, not be an accredited investor, but somebody who's just inherited $3 million or something like that is an accredited investor.
So that's not the way that things should be.
We should have ways for people who are willing to take risks and then demonstrate the knowledge that would be prerequisite to do this can come, whether that be by testing or something.
The SEC has dropped one case after another, even for convicted fraudsters who broke the law.
So there's Devin Archer, the guy who sold $60 million in worthless bonds to pension holders.
You turned him loose.
Carlos Watson, who raked in tens of millions of dollars by lying to investors about his company's financial performance, you turned him loose.
And Trevor Milton, who drew in hundreds of millions of dollars by defrauding investors in his company, you turned him loose after he donated $1.8 million to a Trump campaign fund.
Three different ways to cheat investors, but there's one thing that all three have in common.
Mr. Atkins, did each of these corporate executives who defrauded American investors first get clemency from President Trump and then, as the cherry on top of the whipped cream, got all the SEC charges and investigations against them dropped?
unidentified
Well, each one of those cases had particular aspects to them.
But the part I raised is did they all get clemency from President Trump and then the SEC backed off and stopped all of its independent investigations and charges.
Is that a problem?
unidentified
Well, there is always the issue if the president has pardoned someone or given clemency, then it becomes very difficult to push forward civil actions against.
These fraudsters stole millions of dollars from their investors.
They were convicted of crimes.
But after Trump granted them clemency, SEC fell in line and dropped its pending cases against them, too.
You know, it's part of a broader pattern.
Just look at the crypto companies that donated a whopping $85 million to President Trump's inauguration.
They may have scammed investors and consumers, but once Trump was sworn in, the SEC started dropping these cases like hot potatoes.
Kraken donated $1 million, case dismissed.
Coinbase, $1 million, case dismissed.
Gemini donates a million dollars, case dismissed.
Binance and a UAE company gave the Trump family stablecoin a huge boost in a $2 billion deal, case against Binance, dismissed.
As a recent independent investigation found, and I'm going to quote it, the SEC no longer actively pursues any cases against firms with known Trump ties.
The agency backtracked in investigating every firm that has relationships with the Trump family's crypto business or has donated to Mr. Trump's political causes.
Chair Atkins, help me out here.
Prove the outside investigators wrong.
List the cases the SEC is still actively pursuing against crypto companies that have made big donations to Donald Trump or Trump businesses.
I'm not sure what the name the cases that you are actively pursuing against people or against these giant crypto companies that have made huge contributions to Donald Trump.
The ones that we've dropped were on registration issues just because the prior committee is that when these swindlers crash our economy and pull down retirees' pension funds, it's going to be hardworking Americans who pay the price.
Mr. Adkins, first of all, I'm going to give you an opportunity to actually answer the questions and correct perhaps some of the accusations that have been made here, particularly with regard to the President.
But let me just start out with something that I, just in looking back over your work here, you made it very clear that what you wanted to do in coming back in was to reverse the trend of the number of companies that were available for small investors to be able to get in and invest in.
In fact, you indicated that there were more than 7,000 companies listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange back in the 1990s, from small cap innovators to giants of the industry.
And yet by the time that you've returned as chairman earlier this year, that number had fallen by roughly 40 percent, meaning that small investors had fewer places to go to actually enjoy and create their own American dream.
So I come to this from a little different attitude that I think what you're trying to do is to create an atmosphere in which small companies can grow and thrive and not simply be the ones that are managed by private equity programs.
Based upon that, it seems as though you're trying to bring companies back in.
Part of it has to do with enforcement and the philosophy of the appropriate way to enforce rules and regulations that the SEC is responsible for, number one, creating and then enforcing and having oversight on.
Can you talk a little bit about your philosophy?
Because I think that's critical at this point to give you that opportunity.
unidentified
Okay, well, thank you, Senator Rounds.
Yes, so I firmly believe that the law is a law and that regardless of the parties involved, that we have a duty to do to, as Senator Warren said, to the investing public to police our markets.
And I take that extremely seriously.
And so some of these cases that were dropped happened before I arrived, so between Inauguration Day and the time of the year.
Some of the cases that you were just accused of getting involved with had been dropped before you arrived.
unidentified
Yes, after inauguration and in an effort by then Commissioner Ueda and Chairman Ueda and Commissioner Peirce to withdraw from things that we viewed as they viewed as regulation through enforcement.
And so these are mostly registration issues under Section 5 of the Securities Act.
And that was a regulation through enforcement where in the past the SEC just said, come in, you know, there's an easy thing to do.
Just fill out an S1 on our website, fill it in and talk to us about it.
But there was no effort to accommodate the new technologies and these new products that were just in opposite to the forms and I would argue were not securities in the first place.
So that is a changed attitude from the SEC and that accounts for most of those cases that were dropped.
So seven of the crypto litigation dismissals of the nine that were dismissed were because of those registration issues.
And so under the Trump administration here since the beginning of the administration a year ago, the SEC has brought about five crypto asset-related cases.
So I don't have the exact number here in front of me, but it's around that.
I want to move back into an area that I think is really important, and that is the development of artificial intelligence and its use.
Under the Biden administration, we saw securities regulation used to achieve some political and social objectives, often at the expense of investors and small businesses.
I want to thank you for your commitment to returning the SEC to its core mission.
Chairman Atkins, the administration's 2025 AI action plan encourages the development of regulatory sandboxes at independent agencies, including the SEC.
This venue would allow SEC-regulated entities such as broker dealers, investment advisors, to test new AI tools under structured oversight.
Now, I've introduced legislation with Senators Heinrich, Kim, and Tillis that would do just that, bipartisan legislation.
Do you believe that our legislation would give the SEC the tools it needs to foster responsible AI innovation?
And could it serve as a useful model as the SEC implements the AI action plan?
unidentified
Well, thank you, Senator.
I haven't actually had the opportunity to review your language.
Happy to do that and discuss it.
But the premise, I agree with you very much, that I think it would be very useful, and I've been talking about an innovation exemption to begin that at the SEC to allow entrepreneurs in a sandbox-like environment that's cabined by cabined, time-limited, transparent, flexible, and then focused on investor protection.
So all of those principles, you know, I think are important to allow people to try different things in a particular environment and then prove their concept.
I don't know if you've paid attention to some of my comments.
I've been critical of some folks in the administration.
You're certainly not one of them.
I'm really glad that you're leading the SEC.
I've just got a real quick question for you, because I'll submit some for the record.
But I'm trying to wrap my head around the rationale of at least four, maybe five state-owned enterprises now in the state, or at least ownership.
You think about Intel, you think about the golden share of U.S. Steel, a couple of other countries where we have a stake that ranges anywhere from 10 to 15 percent.
I'm worried more about that.
You know, I understand the circumstances that got us there, but I'm worried more about whether or not that raises the bar for upstarts and other businesses in that space, one.
And two, when you have that level of ownership from the U.S. government and you also have all the devices of supervision and oversight in those same companies, how is our ownership not the only vote that matters on a board?
unidentified
Well, thank you, Senator.
Those particular cases, you know, I'm not really familiar with all the details as to the decision-making there and the national securities issues and whatnot.
But entrepreneurship is the thing that really drives things here in the United States, and competition is really important for our firms here.
And so having government, I'm not sure that the worry about having government involvement necessarily means it's like the golden key to success that you look at other government entities that might not be so well.
Yeah, I just worry, and I didn't mean to put you in a bind here, but you were probably the best person I could actually pose the question to.
You know, we have EEL, we have Intel, almost a 10% stake, $8.9 billion.
We have MP Materials, 15% stake, rare earth minerals.
We have Lithium America's 10% stake, and we have Trilogy Metals, 10% stake.
So I'm just looking at these where, you know, if you had, let's say that we had somebody out there that wanted to be a Lithium Americas killer, what is the likelihood that they could take them on and what is the likelihood that anybody would take on that risk?
I'm just asking a general business question here.
If you know you've got an 800-pound gorilla that not only has an equity stake, but has the entire supervision and regulatory resources behind it.
I just logically, if I were advising businesses again, which I may be doing in about 325 days, I'd say, you know, before I go and try and take on big lithium, MP materials, Lithium America's trilogy materials to use that space, rare earth minerals, I may want to go search another market until that settles down.
So I don't expect you to respond to it, but it is something that really is an artifact from 2025.
And I hope that the U.S. still golden share, I don't even like the name of it, golden share, because it sounds like the golden ticket, which sounds like their ticket to run that company if they want to.
To me, it just seems anti-free market.
And if you could just opine on whether or not, or for the record, and only from your perspective, what would that do for a budding new company that wants to enter that space if they know they've got the 800-pound gorilla in the room?
Don't need to answer it now.
I didn't mean to catch you flat-footed or anything, but I would appreciate your insight.
Thank you so much to Chair Scott and Ranking Member Warren for holding today's hearing.
Chairman Atkins, my number one priority on the banking committee is pursuing policies that will create real economic opportunity.
And I want more of my constituents, quite frankly, not to live on the margins, but to be able to build wealth, generational wealth, for themselves and their families.
And so I'm not afraid to say this.
And I think it means access to capital, credit, and markets.
And it also means robust investor protections.
And so I want to briefly mention a few topics surrounding the development of market structure legislation, which I believe is really important to underserved communities.
Young people are extremely interested in these technologies.
I think about my daughter and all of her friends.
And we need to protect both consumers and our financial system by regulating them.
So I speak for so many of my colleagues in wanting to get to a really good bipartisan product that protects investors and the integrity of our markets.
And part of this process, like others have noted, means getting a full slate of Democratic commissioners confirmed to the Commission very quickly.
There is no reason that this White House cannot nominate qualified individuals to the positions that safeguard our financial system.
Now, you have spoken at length, Chair Atkins, about tokenization, the technology behind converting ownership of traditional financial assets, including securities, on a blockchain.
And as this technology develops, it is going to be really important that we ensure the owners of tokenized securities have all the same rights and protections as owners of traditional securities.
This is vital for protecting investors and the capital markets that make us the envy of the world.
Congress should play an important role here in providing guardrails and direction, and I would be grateful for your continued cooperation.
Do I, Chair, have your commitment in this regard?
unidentified
Yes, Senator, thank you very much.
But I think it goes without saying that under current law that tokenized securities are securities and we'll treat them as such.
And that's our firm position at the SEC.
And I think our authority under that is clear no matter how securities are recorded, whether like the old-fashioned paper certificates or book entry at DTCC or whether they're traded on-chain as tokenized securities.
So I'm happy to work with you and your colleagues to get you comfortable with that as you consider to work on market structure legislation, for example.
But that's an important precept and we will obviously, I think that's clear under current law.
Another important issue is preserving state, consumer, and investor protection laws.
And Maryland's state securities regulator is at the front lines of protecting Maryland investors from fraud and misrepresentation.
So, Chair Atkins, do you believe it's important to protect state consumer and investor protection laws that prohibit companies from lying to or misleading investors about their business dealings or their stock offerings?
unidentified
Well, so as far as I know, generally, I don't know about the specific ones you're talking about, but generally, the Securities Acts were very careful not to preempt state laws with respect to blue sky or other sorts of consumer issues.
So, you know, I'll fan I can't think of an exception offhand, but I think that's a strong precept of the federalism sort of approach that was taken.
Now, Maryland's one of the most entrepreneurial states in the country.
We have about 112 small businesses for every 1,000 residents.
And this puts us at the top tier nationally.
We're home to world-class research institutions and more federal research labs than any other state, including NIH, FDA, and NASA.
But innovation can't scale without capital.
And Maryland now ranks fifth in the nation for venture capital investment with roughly $1 billion raised last year.
So how do we lower, in your opinion, Chair, barriers for emerging and first-time founders to access without compromising investor protections?
unidentified
Well, that's a good issue, and I really am intent on trying to find some solutions to help on that because the small businesses are the engine of growth for jobs in this country and have pretty much always been that way.
So what we want to do by fostering the ability for capital to find its way to those entrepreneurs so that they can build their business.
233 Yea, 184 Nay Vote00:09:48
unidentified
So part of it is, when I'm talking about making IPOs great again, to in the old days back when I was a young lawyer in New York in the early, in the mid-80s, Microsoft and Apple and all the big companies like that tapped into the public markets to build their property equipment and come up with their RD and then market their products and whatnot.
Now it's become so complicated and costly that's out of reach.
Bob was a Marine Corps veteran, a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service, and an outstanding member of the community.
Born in 1936, Bob graduated from Punxatoni Area High School in 1954.
At 22, he enlisted in the Marine Corps and completed an overseas tour in Japan and obtained the rank of corporal.
Following his military service, Bob returned to Pennsylvania and opened the Leitner and Bishop General Store with his wife, Jean.
Today, the building that housed the general store is home to the Moja Post Office.
Bob was a letter carrier for 36 years and received the Million Mile Award, which recognizes workers who drive over 1 million miles.
He also served with the Mojo Volunteer Fire Department as an EMT.
Bob passed away on June 15, 2023.
Mr. Speaker, Bob dedicated his life to service to his country and his community, and I look forward to renaming the Moja Post Office in his honor.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.
unidentified
Gentleman Yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from California seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I see a candidate that has consent to address the house for tough date red eyes for one minute.
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in celebration of Thut, the Vietnamese Lunar New Year.
Lunar New Year is so much more than a date on the calendar.
It's an opportunity for the Asian American communities in California and across America to reflect on our past and to open our hearts to the promise of the future.
I grew up as a child of Vietnamese refugees.
My family gave up everything to rebuild their lives in America after fleeing communist oppression.
They worked tirelessly to achieve the freedom and prosperity that the American dream offers us.
I couldn't be prouder to honor my heritage from the floor of the House of Representatives.
I want to extend my warmest wishes to everyone in our community for a joyful and prosperous year of the horse.
Jokmen, namai, happy new year.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Gentleman Yields, for what purpose does the gentleman from Washington seek recognition?
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize my outgoing communications director, Mr. Matt Reed.
Matt's been on my staff for two and a half years, and during that time, has been a crucial member of my team.
Matt has a tremendous work ethic, an infectious sense of humor, and is a friend to everyone in the office.
From late hours in the D.C. office to road trips throughout central Washington, Matt's been my megaphone across three Congresses, and we have enjoyed every minute of it.
As Matt departs for the House, for I'm sorry to say, the upper chamber, I'm confident he will succeed in his new role, that he will have a bright future ahead of him.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back.
unidentified
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my good friend and a dedicated public servant, Dennis Troy, who passed away at the age of 78 from a courageous battle with cancer.
A proud Bronx native and Manhattan College alum, Dennis and his wife Bea lived in Pearl River for over 34 years, raising their four children and constantly giving back to their community.
Dennis was one of those people who did not just serve his community, he lived for it.
From his years on the Orangetown Board and in the county legislature, to the countless nights and weekends he gave to youth sports, veterans, and local organizations, including his beloved AOH Division III.
Dennis showed us what real public service looked like by always putting his community first.
But beyond the titles and accomplishments, Dennis was simply a good man.
He was generous with his time, steady in his values, and always supportive and encouraging, especially to those of us who were lucky enough to call him a friend.
Orangetown and Pearl River are better places because of Dennis, and his legacy will never be forgotten.
My heartfelt condolences go out to his family and all who had the pleasure of knowing him.
Thank you for the many years of mentorship and friendship.
Dennis, I will miss you.
You are loved.
I yield back.
unidentified
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, Frank Scott, a ninth generation farmer, was proudly honored as our state's young farmer of the year.
His family takes great pride in producing tobacco, sweet potatoes, cotton, soybeans, and sweet onions together with his dedicated wife, Rebecca, and two children, Elijah and Lizzie.
Frank tirelessly manages their family farm, exemplifying resilience and unwavering dedication.
Recently, Frank shared with me the enormous weight on his shoulders of holding on to his family's farm and one day turning it over to his children, our next generation.
I had the pleasure of speaking with his lively son, Elijah, who can hardly wait to assist his dad on the farm.
And I'm prayerfully, one day, am able to call a 10th generation farmer.
Congratulations, Frank, and to your entire family on this well-deserved recognition.
Your story not only uplifts your family, but also is an inspiration for all people across America.
Thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.
I yield back.
unidentified
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Michigan seek recognition?
Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today for a very important reason.
You see, today is my mom's birthday, and I want to wish my mom a happy 80th birthday.
Her name is Carolyn, but if you are in the 9th District, you probably know her as Granny.
So let me tell you a little bit about Granny.
She's tougher than any whipcount, and she's more disciplined than running the house floor.
And I'll tell you that's saying something up here.
But let me tell you what you really need to know about my mom.
She is the life of every party at 80 years young, and she lives every day to its fullest.
She taught me how to work hard, to listen more than I should speak.
She taught me to never, ever back down and to believe in myself.
And she is the very reason that today I am standing where I'm standing.
She's the heart of our family, a role model for our grandkids, and the woman who reminds me every single day of why I came up here to fight for the people of my district, the 9th District.
So, mom, happy birthday.
I love you more than words can say, and I can't wait to get home and celebrate with you.
unidentified
For what purpose does the gentleman from California seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the house for one minute to revise and send myself.
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, which recently celebrated its 25th anniversary serving communities in Sacramento and Placer County.
On December 1st, 2000, the American River Fire District and the Sacramento County Fire Protection District reorganized to form what we now know as Metro Fire, uniting 16 fire agencies into one force dedicated to protecting our communities.
Today, Metro Fire serves more than 720,000 people across 359 square miles.
With 41 fire stations and more than 700 dedicated members, they stand ready around the clock to respond to fires, rescues, medical emergencies, and more to save lives and protect property.
Hyperbaric Hope for Heroes00:02:47
unidentified
Their mission says it best.
Professional and compassionate protection, education, and service to the community.
And that commitment isn't just words.
It's how they show up every day, often on the hardest day of someone else's life.
The teamwork and pride show up in every setting.
Last year, Station 26 took first place in the inaugural Hero Act Chili Cook Off my office hosted at the California State Fair.
And I was proud to visit the station to present ribbons to Captain Adam Huckabee and firefighter Taylor Edwards.
As we celebrate this milestone, we also have a responsibility to support the men and women who support all of us, especially when it comes to their mental health.
That's why I'm continuing to push for passage of my bipartisan Hero Act to extend access to mental health and support for our brave first responders.
Thank you, and with that, I yield back.
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Virginia seek recognition?
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, Charlottesville Hyperbarics has become a front line in the fight for veterans suffering from the invisible wounds of war.
They recently launched the Hyperbaric Wellness Foundation and have partnered with the Howe Foundation to provide hyperbaric oxygen therapy to veterans battling PTSD or other traumatic brain injury.
Additionally, generous grants from the Department of Veterans Services has allowed them to successfully treat over 59 veterans so far this year.
As a Navy SEAL veteran, I have friends that have battled wounds that go deeper than emotion.
Advanced Imogen now confirms that PTSD is a neurological brain injury.
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy using pure oxygen under pressure heals these injuries directly and restores brain health.
When I visited the clinic last May, I saw the healing in action.
Two of the staff members leading the veterans program are veterans who suffer from PTSD.
They went through the program themselves.
HBOT changed their lives so completely, they are now dedicated themselves to helping others do the same.
We're still losing over 20 veterans a day to suicide, despite exhaustive and costly efforts to stop it.
That's not just a tragedy, it's a call to action.
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy is saving lives and helping veterans rejoin their families, their communities, and the workforce.
And with sufficient funding and support, we can expand this model across Virginia and across our country.
Our veterans deserve a program that can help them.
Veterans Deserve Help00:06:26
unidentified
And with that, I yield back.
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Oregon seek recognition?
Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to share an excerpt from a letter from a child who was detained at the Dilley ICE Facility.
My name is Ariana.
I'm 14 years old and I'm from Honduras.
I've been detained for 45 days.
Since I got to this center, all you will feel is sadness and mostly depression.
I've been in this country for almost seven years, and in those seven years, my mom and I found a home and made a bigger family.
I have never been separated from my siblings, and it's honestly sad because they are little and they need their mom and sister.
She goes on to say, I haven't been getting any school time.
There are various viruses.
People are always sick.
Serious situations happen and the officers can't take them seriously enough.
There are no consequences.
They don't care.
Mr. Speaker, children are being traumatized by what this administration is doing to them.
We must ask ourselves, is this right?
Is this moral?
Is this the nation we want to be?
Thank you, and I yield back.
Gentlewoman yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Colorado seek recognition?
I rise today to celebrate Grace Baptist Church and Pastor Matt Miller for 50 years of gospel service in Colorado's 5th congressional district.
Founded by Dr. Dean Miller's family in 1976 as Cornerstone Baptist Church, for 50 years, this congregation has ministered the hope of the gospel.
They've provided Christian education, and they've equipped Christians for ministry and trained the next generation of Bible preachers.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in congratulating Pastor Miller and all who have been there as congregants and well done to all of the faithful servants at Grace Baptist Church.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back.
unidentified
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from New York seek recognition?
Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, in the centennial year of Black History Month, I rise today as just one voice in the continuous and collective effort to celebrate the incomparable Congresswoman Shirley Anita Chisholm to the degree that she deserves.
For her legacy of justice and equality in Brooklyn, New York, and America, for the possibilities her very being opened to millions of black women and girls, for never failing to live her American dream out loud, I am proud to introduce my resolution that would result in a tribute worthy of her character and accomplishments, the permanent placement of her statue in the United States Capitol.
In this time of unprecedented attacks on the true story of our country, honoring Shirley Chisholm with a statue in the halls of Congress would signal to the American people that this body is still committed to recognizing the defining figures of our history.
We must show future generations that the progress of today is not about to appear, did not appear by accident.
It took unrelenting passion, integrity, and dedication.
It took leaders like Congresswoman Chisholm, who from her first day to the last remained unbought and unbossed.
I believe we have a moral mandate and a real opportunity here, not just to examine racial inequalities that permeate every sector and segment of our society, but the responsibility to reflect on how we got here right here in these halls.
Looking towards the faces in this room with me now, I can say with certainty that Shirley Chisholm's legacy is reflected in myself and the many colleagues of today.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the ball.
unidentified
The gentlewoman yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida seek recognition?
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
As tax filing season begins, important improvements to our tax code are already making a real difference for older Americans.
For too long, seniors were treated unfairly, Mr. Speaker, taxed on their Social Security benefits, and left struggling to cover rising costs.
That is finally starting to change.
This year, a new $6,000 tax exemption for taxpayers aged 65 and older takes effect.
Last week, I visited a tax preparation site in Pasco County, Florida, and my constituents confirmed that this provision is helping them.
Enacted as part of the Working Families Tax Credit Act, this deduction applies through 2028 and is available whether seniors take the standard deduction or itemize.
It will benefit millions of Americans on fixed incomes, providing meaningful relief as costs for housing, health care prescriptions, and groceries continue to rise.
But our work is not done, Mr. Speaker.
To many seniors, they still see their Social Security benefits taxed.
That's why I support legislation to fully exempt Social Security income from federal taxation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today during Black History Month to honor a giant in the civil rights movement, Ella Baker.
She grew up in North Carolina and studied at Shaw University, an outstanding and historic HBCU in Raleigh.
After attending Shaw, she moved to New York City and fought for economic justice for black Americans.
She went on to work with Dr. King to organize the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
Following nationwide sit-ins led by black college students, Ms. Baker was an instrumental figure in forming the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee at Shaw University at a conference in 1960.
From fighting for voting rights for black Americans to mentoring the next generation of civil rights leaders, Ella Baker paved the way for future generations.
North Carolina and our country are better because of Ella Baker.
Thank you, and I yield back.
unidentified
The gentlewoman yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Matt Hanley on his well-deserved recognition as one of Georgia Trend magazine's 100 most influential Georgians for 2026.
In just under a year since assuming the role of president and CEO of Northeast Georgia Health System, Dr. Hanley has demonstrated exceptional vision in a relentless pursuit of excellence.
Dr. Hanley's seamless transition to leadership continues Northeast Georgia Health System's remarkable growth, including five hospitals, advanced medical programs, and an economic impact exceeding $7.5 billion.
Named alongside leading business and academic figures like Delta Airlines Ed Bastion and University of Georgia President Jerry Moorhead, Dr. Hanley is in great company.
He credits all recognition to the dedicated staff and workforce at the hospital, at the health care system, for their shared commitment to keeping communities healthy, expanding access to care, and meeting everyday needs.
Dr. Hanley has proven his leadership from the emergency room to the boardroom and now among Georgia's most influential voices.
Through his service, Dr. Hanley is helping build a healthier, a stronger Georgia for all.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back.
unidentified
Gentleman Yields, for what purpose does the gentlewoman from Ohio seek recognition?
Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about Ohio's own Lila Edwards.
Lila is a native of Cleveland Heights and currently represents the United States in the Winter Olympics, my favorite.
Lila became the first black woman to play for the United States in Olympic women's ice hockey at this year's Milano-Cortina Games at 22.
She didn't just make the roster, she contributed, recording her first Olympic point in a 5-to-1 win over checkup.
We've been saying it for years.
Ohioans are awesome, and Lila truly proves it.
She grew up skating on our lakes and ponds, working hard and believing in herself.
She kept going even when she was the only girl on the ice, even when few people who looked like her had ever been given that chance.
During Black History Month, her story reminds us that progress doesn't happen by accident.
It happens because purposeful people show up, work hard, and refuse to be told they don't belong.
I congratulate Lila Edwards.
Lila, you have made Northwest Ohio and all of Ohio extremely proud.
Proud of our country.
Go, Lila.
Go Team USA.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I yield back.
unidentified
Gentlewoman Yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Indiana seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I ask for announcements to the Senate to address the House for one minute to revise and extend our market.
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to rise today to honor my parents, Albert and Sarah Stutsman.
They are celebrating their 50th anniversary this Saturday, one day after Valentine's.
And I just want to acknowledge them and all that they've done for me and for my siblings.
They have really been an example of what hard work and what faith can do in a great country like America.
My dad dropped out of high school.
They were married when they were very young.
And they worked tremendously hard.
They went through a lot of challenges in their own lives as they worked to build a better future for not only themselves, but for my siblings and myself and others.
They were foster parents.
They went on mission trips.
They helped people in the community.
They would take people into our home whenever they needed help.
And they were always willing to help those who were in need.
They were always active in church.
They were active in our schools.
And I just can't say enough about how proud I am of my parents, Albert and Sarah.
And so I just want to wish them a happy anniversary this weekend.
I love you and looking forward to years ahead together.
Thank you.
Yield back.
Gentleman Yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from New York seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I ask your managers to consent to address the House for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks.
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, February is Black History Month when we take special note of the historic achievements of African Americans that have helped shape today's America.
Black history is American history, for decades ignored by racism.
And now, as we identify and remember both those famous and some unfamiliar names from decades past, there is today a movement to whitewash history to minimize those names.
But there are efforts to ensure we never forget the role played by our black sisters and brothers.
Bronx Councilman Kevin Riley is sponsoring one such effort, the fifth annual Black History Month Living Legends Luncheon, honoring our neighbors on Wednesday, February 25th, from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. at the Bay Plaza Mall Food Court.
It will highlight black leaders from Co-op City, Edenwald, Wakefield, and other parts of the North Bronx who have helped the community and thereby made history.
Councilman Riley, thank you for making black history come alive for today's generations in the Bronx.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back.
unidentified
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from South Carolina seek recognition?
War criminal Putin should apologize for his January 29th phone call pledge to President Donald Trump to avoid destroying utilities in Ukraine, while Putin accelerates attacks to freeze Ukrainians as Stalin starved Ukrainians.
Putin should apologize to courageous First Lady Melania Trump for keeping kidnapped Ukrainian children to Putinize them as Hitler kidnapped Polish children to Germany.
Putin should apologize to Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jerry Kushner for endless meetings in Moscow, Doha, Abu Dhabi, Miami, Paris, Vienna, and New York as Putin restocks Iranian drones, Chinese communist missiles, and North Korean troops.
The war continues as dictators with rule of gun invade democracies with rule of law.
February 24, 2022, into Ukraine.
October 7, 2023, into Israel.
In conclusion, God bless our troops.
As the global war on terrorism continues, Trump is reinstituting peace through strength, revealing war criminal Putin lies, insulting Trump, mocking Trump with murderous attacks this week in Ukraine, freezing civilians with no electricity, no heat, and no water.
I yield back.
unidentified
Gentleman Yields.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from Minnesota seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the life and service of Minnesota State House Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman, who we lost to an unspeakable act of political violence last year.
The Minnesota House of Representatives will convene next week for the first time in more than 20 years without Melissa's presence.
She was the single longest female speaker in Minnesota state history.
She always led with a calm and steady demeanor, emphasizing conversation and listening to one another.
She rejected the idea that our political differences should prevent us from working together and always encouraged us to focus on our shared desire to make our state and our country a better place for the next generation.
Melissa was a giant among Minnesota lawmakers and modeled leadership qualities that we all should emulate.
She recognized that true leaders do not bully and coerce.
They listen and sacrifice.
They compromise while remaining true to their convictions, and they lead with humility above all else.
I think of her mentorship and her example every day and call on my colleagues to honor her legacy by prioritizing civility and humility in our service and always striving to make our communities just a little bit better for someone else.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I yield back.
unidentified
The gentleman yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Arizona seek recognition?
I rise today to commemorate and honor Robert Skanki and Hunter Bennett, who tragically lost their lives in a helicopter crash last Wednesday.
After responding to a domestic violence call and flag staff, law enforcement officers engaged in a nearly two-hour gunfight with a dangerous criminal.
During the pursuit, the Arizona Department of Public Safety provided air support with a Ranger 56 helicopter crew.
Shortly after the suspect was apprehended, the helicopter crashed, taking the lives of Marine veteran Robert Skanke and trooper paramedic Hunter Bennett.
On behalf of all Arizonans, we mourn the loss of these two heroes who dedicated their lives to public service.
Words cannot fully express our gratitude for their selflessness, courage, and commitment to keeping our community safe.
May the Lord bless their families, friends, and colleagues during this difficult time and grant them everlasting peace.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
unidentified
I yield.
Gentleman yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Missouri seek recognition?
As unanimously consented just the house for one minute as we extend up to Black House.
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, each month I recognize a St. Louis All-Star, someone who represents the very best of our city.
During Black History Month, I've been highlighting black leaders who helped shape St. Louis and expand opportunity for everyone.
But this week is bigger than one name, because long before the great Bill Clay was elected to Congress, black Missourians were fighting through poll taxes, literacy tests, and intimidation just to cast a ballot.
They were told their voices didn't matter.
They organized anyway.
Countless leaders pushed from the streets, as well as leaders like our beloved Frankie Muse Freeman, who fought in the courts.
And when I see new efforts to make voting more restrictive, more complicated, more conditional, I'm reminded why their work matters.
Black History Month isn't just about remembrance, it's about vigilance.
I stand here because they fought to open the door, and I won't let anyone quietly close it.
I yield back.
Gentleman yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Rhode Island seek recognition?
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, Trump unleashed chaos and cruelty on our cities.
His ICE and Border Patrol agents are out of control.
Mass federal agents are terrorizing our communities.
They've killed two Americans, exercising their First Amendment rights, and have killed others.
They're targeting people based on their skin color.
Instead of demanding accountability, Republicans are rushing to give more money to ICE and CBP.
This is reckless.
It is dangerous and it must stop.
Not another taxpayer penny should go to CBP or ICE until guardrails are in place to protect civil liberties, prevent abuse, and hold officers accountable for breaking the law.
Americans do not want these agents roaming their streets.
And they're done paying for government-sanctioned terror, masquerading as public safety.
It is not immigration enforcement.
This failure starts at the top.
Christine Noam must go.
She must be removed.
Gentlemen's time has expired.
I'm demanding accountability and moral leadership.
Our democracy depends on it.
I yield back.
Gentleman Yields.
For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California seek recognition?
Mr. Speaker, I request to excuse me, address the House for one minute.
Without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.
I rise today to honor a son of Oakland, California, my constituent, Ryan Kugler, whose film Centers has earned 16 Academy Award nominations, the most of any film in Oscar history.
Ryan Kugler was born in Oakland, California, raised in Richmond, and educated at St. Mary's in Berkeley.
And he first came to national attention by putting a human face on the murder of Oscar Grant.
He is the youngest director to helm a billion-dollar film, and now with Centers, he has given the world the work a prophetic seminar.
Sinners deploys the imagery of southern Gothic whore to excavate the truce this republic has long preferred to bury.
Vampirism became a metaphor in the film to uplift systems that fed on black life and body and spirit since the founding of this country.
It is the full humanity that he lifts up in this movie, the humanity of black folks building community and clamoring and claiming joy under apartheid conditions.
Alongside Ryan Kugler, our district celebrates Oaklanders Delroy, Lindo, and Raphael Sadiq for their nominations.
Three Oakland artists, one film.
Ryan Kugler, we are so very proud of you.
And I'll yield back.
unidentified
The gentlewoman yields.
For what purpose does the gentleman from New Jersey seek recognition?
I request unanimous consent to address the House for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks.
Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
Mr. Speaker, I have said for months that no one is safe in Trump's America.
From New Jersey to Minnesota, mothers, fathers, children, no one is safe.
We've seen people like Greg Bavino and his masked paramilitaries come into our communities and cause an immense amount of harm.
We've seen five-year-olds come home from school only to be detained, then sent to Dilley, Texas, then to be returned and see the administration try to end their asylum claim.
This is what people are experiencing across the country, and we need everyone to speak out against it, not just in Minnesota, not just in New Jersey, and not just Democrats, but Republicans as well.
This is not who we are as a country, and we cannot be silent in this moment.
Gentleman Yields.
Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3rd, 2025, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
First of all, I'll assure the chair that I will not be speaking for 60 minutes.
I'll be kind of amazed if I get to 25.
But okay, we now go on a work period back in the district for a little over a week.
And I think there's certain topics that haven't been talked about enough in this chamber, and hopefully they'll be talked about a little bit more when we return.
The first anecdote, which is symptomatic of huge problems for America, I would argue the greatest immediate concern for America is shown by an incident that happened in Minneapolis.
A little while ago, an ICE agent doing his job had his finger bitten off by one of these radical protesters who seem to have descended in Minneapolis.
What happened afterwards, though, as horrific as that is, was even worse.
First of all, you would think if you bit off somebody's finger, you would be in a lot of trouble with the law.
And Minneapolis is in some place called Hennepin County, and you would have felt the Hennepin County law enforcement and district attorney would have dealt very seriously with the person who bit off the finger of an ICE agent.
In fact, Minneapolis, which is kind of like, I guess, New York West or Los Angeles East, they did not see anything worth prosecuting when you bite off the finger of an East agent, an ICE agent.
So then we went to the federal law enforcement and they convened a grand jury to indict the person who bit off a finger of an ICE agent, which you would think would be relatively automatic.
Nobody argued that this person didn't bite off the finger of an ICE agent, which by the way will not be able to be sewn back on.
But instead, when they brought it before a grand jury, which was somewhere between 16 and 22 people, they would not indict.
They were, in fact, hostile to the ICE agent and wondered what he was doing in Minnesota.
So the person who bit off the finger of an ICE agent will not suffer any penalty at all that we can determine.
Now, this is not only an incredible injustice to the ICE agent who lost his finger, it is a danger sign for America.
Every country has immigration laws.
When I talk to people in my district, even people who think we ought to let more people in this country, they don't think we should have no immigration laws.
But nevertheless, this is where we stand.
And as I've repeated before, we right now naturalize about 800,000 people every year in this country.
800,000 people are sworn in as new citizens.
That's, you take like a four-year rolling average.
That is higher than any time in our country.
It is about six times what we were letting in when I was a child.
We right now are at a position which about one out of six people in America is foreign-born, which is the highest it's been for at least the last 130 years.
Okay, so we have nothing to apologize for.
We're not being xenophobic.
We're not saying we're going to let nobody in this country.
But obviously, we have to have some restrictions or we'd wind up with tens of millions of more people in the country.
But despite our generosity in letting more people here, we have significant areas of the country governed by elected people who will do all they can to wage war on the rest of us and not enforce our immigration laws.
And this is the most egregious example of the problem.
Can you imagine a district, a grand jury that's attitude is, we don't care if an ICE agent gets their finger bitten off?
That's what we have in Minnesota.
And like I said, well, it is outrageous in its own right for this individual.
It is a danger sign for the future of America when you have significant areas of the United States which are actively working to have no immigration laws at all.
This happened in Minnesota.
I think it could have happened in Washington State.
It could have happened in California.
It could have happened in New York.
So we have to find a way to get Americans back on the straight and narrow as far as respecting our law enforcement.
Now, one of the reasons why they lost control in Minneapolis in the first place is that local law enforcement would not assist ICE.
I have talked to sheriffs in my own district, and whenever any federal agency is engaged in an action in any county that they're aware of, the local law enforcement is prepared to assist them.
That's if the FBI is around, if ICE is around, if the Secret Service is around, if alcohol, tobacco, and firearms are around, the local sheriffs always say, what can we do to help you?
Maybe it's secure a perimeter.
Maybe it is to transport somebody who's broken the law.
But maybe it's just to have a squad car visible to let local people know that some serious law enforcement work is going on.
But whatever it is, the sheriffs of the state of Wisconsin are always there.
It is automatic that they assist their brothers in law enforcement.
The sheriffs I talked to couldn't even think of an example in which local law enforcement complained privately about having to help the feds.
But in Minnesota, and it's not surprising it happened in Minnesota and not in Missouri and not Indiana, in Minnesota, at the request of elected officials, a mayor and a governor, local law enforcement had to stand down and watch as riots took place, property damage, and even more, injury to the federal employees.
This place has to find a way to persuade our citizens that we are a great country and our laws have to be enforced.
And as long as we keep heading down this path of not enforcing the laws or allowing states to be so degenerate that they do not want to help federal law enforcement, it will ultimately be the end of the country.
Now, I want to talk about another area of which I will say, in this case, what other countries are doing affects the United States and will also head us towards being the type of country we wouldn't want to live in.
And that is with regard to a committee hearing we had this week on the First Amendment and how it affects internet platforms.
But it's really a greater topic than just that.
This week we had a hearing in judiciary in which we talked about restrictions on free speech in Europe.
And usually when I think of Europe, I think of Europe as being kind of like the United States, right?
You take an airline to London or Paris or Rome, and you expect the same freedoms and prosperity you do in the United States.
But in this hearing, we heard of a woman who was a member of the Finnish parliament who was charged with a crime and has had to go through a great deal of legal work to not be penalized yet because she quoted the Bible in Finland.
And the Finnish government had apparently decided, particularly what I guess this body would call a controversial part of Romans, that because she quoted it, she should be penalized for that.
We also heard from an Irish comedian who told jokes about transgenderism in Great Britain.
And he was arrested.
And he has since fled to the United States to a country in which you can still tell jokes about transgenderism so far.
You can still tell jokes about illegal immigration and not go to jail.
Now, we were supposed to care about this, and we do care about it, because it affects our platforms, right?
And insofar as the European governments put restrictions on X or put restrictions on Instagram, it affects Americans as well.
And that is true.
But what I thought was even more significant is this is what's happening in Europe.
In Europe, they have lost the right to free speech, which is just shocking to me.
And frequently, bad things that happen in this country happen in Europe first.
And you've got to remember under the last administration, under the Biden administration, they had proposed a disinformation governance board.
Think about that.
That's something out of Orwell.
Joe Biden, who was the President of the United States, elected in a free election, proposed a disinformation governance board, apparently to identify speech that he didn't like and to have the federal government do something to restrict that speech.
And I'll guarantee you, they would have been restricting free speech when it came to immigration policies.
They would have been for restricting free speech if it intervened with the type of ideas they wanted to instill in kindergarten or first grade or second grade students with regard to human growth and development programs.
But in any event, the totalitarians are at the gates.
They are taking over Western Europe, and the United States is next.
They have taken over Western Europe from what we heard about what's going on in Great Britain and Germany and Finland.
And if you look at the Disinformation Governance Board, right now there were enough Republicans, there were enough free speech news outlets.
There were probably even enough Democrats to prevent the Disinformation Governance Board from going forward.
But if you look in the elections since then, the type of radical Democrats who are replacing the handful of common sense Democrats who are still left, I am afraid that in three or four years, our country will have a disinformation governance board.
Now, what is going on in this country that we're restricting free speech and we hate law enforcement, at least immigration law enforcement, so much that you can bite off a finger of an ICE agent and nothing will happen to you.
I believe what it is, it's a psychological problem, and it's something that our few conservatives in the area of psychology, psychiatry have to identify.
I will refer to it as Thurnberg syndrome.
And you may remember the little girl who about 10 years ago became famous in Sweden for pushing the global warming hoax.
This little girl was in a Western country, a well-off family, somebody who hypothetically should have been happy, right?
Like anybody could believe.
But according to her father, Greta Thurnberg was unhappy despite all her material wealth.
And I think that's true of a lot of people, sadly spoiled people with time on our hands in the West.
And she became happy by spending all her time pushing this global warming stuff.
And you know why it made her happy?
Because she had a purpose in life.
And everybody to be happy needs a purpose in life.
And this little girl who presumably had enough money, she didn't need a job, her parents took care of her, was not surprisingly unhappy, depressed.
So that was her cause.
And eventually she took up other causes.
When the horrific Hamas invaded Israel and killed over a thousand Israelis, she decided to take up that cause and decided to be hostile towards Israel in favor of the terrorists.
And it's not surprising why.
She hated the West.
She hated herself.
And in the Israel-Hamas war, if you want to call it that, Hamas and what you'd call Palestine, they were, as many third world countries are, corrupt.
And being corrupt, they were poor.
The leadership would transfer the money they got from Europe to Qatar or to Paris.
And therefore, seeing a corrupt, unhappy region in Gaza, and a region, by the way, a bored people too, because they were living off of welfare largely, and a choice between that and a well-run Western, honest country like Israel.
Greta Thurnberg got more joy out of engaging in protests or whatever these people do to try to help the Hamas group that killed a thousand, brutally killed, a thousand people.
Our country has got to identify Thurnberg syndrome and see what we can do to prevent it from taking over our country.
Because just as Greta Thurnberg suffers from the psychological problem, I believe the person who bit off the finger of the ICE agent and most of these protesters in Minneapolis also suffer from Thurnberg syndrome in which they hate America, in which they want us to adopt policies which will guarantee the destruction of America.
And they are now clearly a majority in the wildly wealthy city of Minneapolis.
And these people are also a majority in many wildly wealthy cities in California and in New York City.
And unless we find a way to deal with their psychological problems, it will be the end of the U.S. Prior to coming down here today, I attended a little program put on by Stephen Miller, who's a brilliant economist, and talking about how the economy is growing in the U.S. and we should all be so happy.
And as a Republican, I should think, well, that's good news because it means it's more likely that I'm going to be reelected next year in November and my colleagues are going to be re-elected in November.
But I wasn't quite as happy as I should be because I think who wins these elections is not just determined by did the Republicans do a good job of having a strong economy.
In fact, we've done a very good job of improving the economy.
But what scares me is not that.
What scares me is the well-off, unhappy people who, despite the fact that they got a raise next year, despite the fact that their 401k went up, are going to be unhappy because they suffer from Thurnberg syndrome.
And they are too spoiled.
And as the result, they are going to adopt, they're going to vote for the party that is in favor of no immigration.
They're going to vote for the, that even has prominent members who want to get rid of ICE, which is just as absurd as saying prominent members who want to get rid of the police department.
And I'm afraid that that message of no enforcement of immigration laws and restricting the First Amendment so you can't be critical of immigration or can't be critical of weighing in on what we teach young children about sexual activity.
And those people, and for whatever reason, in favor of abortion till birth, which is just so grotesque, the people I deal with back home don't even believe the Democrats are for that.
It's so preposterous, but they are.
But I am afraid that people like that are going to carry the day in the November election.
And what we are dealing with, it's not traditional things.
We are doing a great job in the economy.
What I am afraid of is the increasing number of spoiled Americans who have become like Greta Thurnberg, anti-Westerners, anti-American people who want elected officials who share their view.
And by the way, since we did touch upon the economy, I want to point out something recently that was pointed out to me by Steve Miller.
In the most recent jobs report, there were some jobs we got more of and some jobs we got less of.
There was a significant increase in private sector jobs.
And private sector jobs are very important because private sector jobs lead to wealth.
I, of course, right now have a government job.
But during this time period, the number of government jobs fell.
Private sector jobs up 172,000, government jobs down 42,000.
Now, maybe many Americans don't realize that when we hire, say, more IRS agents, that is supposed to be a good thing and a sign of a strong economy.
That's the way they compute them.
Or if we hire more bureaucrats to look at a computer screen and do nothing in the Department of Defense, that is also supposed to be a sign of a booming economy because we have more jobs.
And in fact, the difference between the one of many differences between the Trump administration and the Biden administration is the Biden administration, when they improved employment, they had the government hire more people.
And they said, look, this is great.
We've had the government hire more people.
When the Republicans took over, we did not consider hiring or laying off more people, staring at computer screens, doing very little that were identified by Doge.
Those were the areas where employment went down and areas where employment went up were areas like in particular manufacturing in which we're producing more things that people use and making people wealthier.
So remember in the future, America, that when you hear statistics about employment going up or down, you should ask what type of employment is going up or down.
Is it like Donald Trump wants and the vast majority of Americans want, in which the number of people involved in manufacturing or service industries that make us a wealthier country are going up?
Or do we want to have the type of figures which are kind of, I think, misled the American people, in which we hire more people for the IRS, we hire more people for the Department of Commerce, we hire more people for the Department of Ag, none of which are making us wealthier, but they do generate statistics in which we say, aha, more people have jobs.
Now, one more time before I leave here, I beg my leadership to do something which I still believe is the number one problem in this country, and that is the fact that we have many programs, most of which originated in the 1960s, which are designed to incentivize families to form without a father in the family.
And there are people who've always wanted this.
Karl Marx always wanted it, and there are all sorts of people in academia who read Karl Marx and think he has something worthwhile to say.
It's something Kate Millette, the founder of women's studies classes, which are all over our universities.
There are relatively few majors, but there are a lot of people who take one of those classes electives.
These people do not want, they're kind of anti-man.
They don't want men in the family.
And it's not surprising, then, with people following this group, that there is they would consider it successful to pass more and more programs that a family with a mother and father at home would not be eligible for, but if they somehow get the man out of the home, they are eligible for.
The programs we're all familiar with them, food stamps, or what used to be called food stamps, low-income housing, where you may get an apartment that other people would have to pay $1,200 for, you get nothing.
Earned income tax credit can easily be, if you don't work too hard, getting $7,000 or $8,000 and getting nothing if you're married to a person with an income.
Pell Grants, as one young gal, about 22 years old, told me that her and her husband got married before they had a child, but she knew lots of friends who weren't getting married because they got free college.
Daycare, another program which you can pay to have someone take care of your kids while at work if you don't get married to the other spouse.
Medicaid program, which we've talked a lot about.
Again, we use the program for health care and poor people to try to penalize those foolish people who get married first.
It's easy, it varies from couple to couple how much they'd lose if they got married, but I think it's safe to say it's very easy to come up with hypotheticals of $25,000 or more, $25,000 penalty in this country from getting married and frequently keeping the men out of the family.
I've known about this for some time.
And in case anybody wants to look at it a little bit more, they can look at books written by George Gilder in the late 1970s, which at the time were bestsellers and everybody talked about during the beginning of the Reagan administration.
And unfortunately, nobody ever did anything about it.
But he looked at what at the time was referred to as a ghetto in Albany, New York.
And he followed around a young couple, and the gal had just gotten pregnant.
And at that time, given George Gilder's upbringing, he thought that would be cause for concern for the couple, that they would have to get married right away, that they would have to work harder to support the child.
And it was George Gilder's surprise and shock that as he followed this young couple around, they were thrilled that the woman got pregnant out of wedlock because it allowed them to go from government office to government office to get the free food to get at the time was called the free AFDC check to get the free rent, to get the free medical care, and they had it made in the shade.
Great, Mary's pregnant.
We're not going to get married.
We're just going to stop working now because of that.
And of course, what happened is over time, Americans' behavior changed.
We went from in the 1950s, before Lyndon Johnson was president, in which about 4% of the children were born without a mother and father at home, to a steady increase for about 30 years to we over 40 percent.
There are so many wonderful single parents out there.
I know people who've done a great job of raising children as a single parent.
And of course, we do have programs to help people who are widows or widowers in Social Security, and that's not, I think, what is normally meant by a single parent.
But overall, when we go down this path, we have more and more people in a difficult situation who can be overwhelmed by this.
It can hurt their children.
And I think studies will show various measures of success or failure much more difficult with a single parent lifestyle.
It also, in something that's not publicized enough, is horrible for the men.
And what George Gilder would tell us, if you looked at a single parent situation, is the person who's penalized the most isn't even the children or the single mom.
The person who's penalized the most is the single man because his natural purpose in life is to support a family.
But the government has taken away his natural purpose in life.
He therefore does not have a purpose in life.
And I think this is why in areas of high poverty, you see so many single men having unhappy lives, right?
If you pick up the paper and find out who's getting murdered, it's usually single men.
If you look and say who's dying of drug overdoses, it's usually single men.
And who is not doing well education-wise?
It's single men.
And of course, the reason the single men are doing so poorly is because of the great society programs which are designed to make those single men worthless.
So this is another reason why government ought to, or this body, ought to take up these welfare programs, not just because we want what's best in the next generation for the children, and not only do we want what's best in the next generation for the mothers, but we just treat the single fathers very poorly.
We don't give them a purpose in life.
And as a result, so many are unhappy.
So many wind up dying of murders, dying of drug overdoses, and just in general leading unhappy lives.
So these are some of the things that I hope we begin to take up next week.
I hope our leadership team realizes that while we're doing a good job on the economy and we are growing private sector jobs and we are not having an artificial economic boom by hiring a bunch of IRS agents and calling it a wealthier country,
I hope we take up some of these other issues and I hope our opinion makers, who are conservatives, take up these other issues and educate the public that for America to become a great country again, we have to get rid of all or do something with all these unhappy Americans suffering from Greta Thurnberg syndrome because they don't have a purpose in life,
so they adapt the purpose of anti-Western anti-American behavior.
In any event, thank you very much for giving me this time.
And I think the chair will turn it over to someone else.
The Speaker's Room is Washington, D.C., February 12, 2026.
I hereby designate the period from Thursday, February 12, 2026, through Sunday, February 22nd, 2026, as a district work period under clause 13 of Rule 1.
Signed sincerely, Mike Johnson, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
unidentified
For what purpose does the gentleman from Wisconsin seek recognition?
On page 3, line 17, strike gold and insert gold semicolon.
On page 3, line 21, strike silver, period, and insert silver semicolon.
unidentified
And without objection, so ordered.
Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 3rd, 2025, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. Speaker, and still I rise, a proud, liberated, unbought, unbossed, unafraid Democrat.
And I rise today, Mr. Speaker, because this is Black History Month, and I have been accorded the honor of presenting annually the original Black History Resolution.
And I'm proud to do this in concert with a great organization.
This organization has been bearing the torch, carrying the torch, the flame of black history now for some many years, founded by the Honorable Carter G. Woodson, who is known widely as the person who established this notion of a Black History Week, Black History Month.
So I'm proud to recognize this organization.
The organization is the Association for the Study of African American Life and History.
This is the preeminent organization of its kind.
It is the leader of the PAC when it comes to black history.
And I'm proud to be associated with them and proud to tell you that this year for our Black History Month, there is a theme, a century of Black History Commemorations.
A century, 100 years.
And today I have chosen a topic, one that I think embraces something that is a little bit more contemporary, something that gives us reason to understand why we have to celebrate black history.
The topic is black history, stolen legacies, stolen legacies, black history, stolen legacies.
Now, friends, Fear not because I want you to understand that I understand that this theme could be applicable to people of color in this country.
It could be applicable to persons who are Latinos.
It could be applicable to persons who are Asian because the complete history of the country has not been properly documented and recorded.
However, since it's Black History Month, I think it appropriate that I take up the cause and explain it as it relates to Black History Month.
Before I go on, I think I should remind people of I am also the same Al Green who has been censured.
Censured but not silenced.
Censured but not silenced.
And I'm proud today to take up this cause of Black history in Black History Month.
Friends, in speaking of legacies that have been stolen, we annually honor General Gordon Granger for going into Galveston and informing the enslaved persons there that the Emancipation Proclamation applied to them and that they were free people, liberated people.
When we do this, we, however, do not acknowledge the people who made it possible for General Gordon Granger to go to Galveston.
These persons were members of the 25th Army Corps.
Approximately 1,000 persons of African ancestry who went to Galveston prior to General Gordon Granger.
They made it possible for Gordon Granger to stand in Galveston, deliver General Order No. 3.
These were the persons who ran the Confederates all the way to the Mexican border.
Legacy stolen because they have literally been minimized and had their history somehow sanitized.
But today we want to make sure that we talk about these persons whose legacies have been stolen.
25th Army Corps.
Let's bring this forward to the civil rights movement.
In the civil rights movement, we honor and we should honor Rosa Parks, a black woman who took her seat on a bus in a racist southern town.
And when she took that seat, she ignited a spark that started a civil rights movement.
Rosa Parks should be honored for what she did.
She was incarcerated for what she did.
She should be honored, and we do honor her.
But friends, the legacy is incomplete because the history of this has not been completely told.
If the true history is told, you have to mention Claudette Colvin.
Claudette Colvin, 15-year-old high school student, member of the NAACP.
Claudette Colvin, she is the person who nine months prior to Rosa Parks taking that seat, did the same thing, was arrested.
Legacy stolen.
Legacy denied.
Claudette Colvin, not only did she go to jail and suffer the same indignation and humiliation as the Honorable Rosa Parks, but she did something else.
She filed a lawsuit.
She was a plaintiff in the lawsuit, Broader versus Gale.
This is the lawsuit that brought the Montgomery bus boycott to a legal end because it was under the pen of the Honorable Frank M. Johnson, a federal district court judge, that ordered that that bus line be integrated and no longer segregated.
This was the dispute that took place when Dr. King was promoted to the leadership of the civil rights movement.
This is where he led the people in this bus boycott to make sure that at some point black people could sit on any seat on the bus that they chose to, because they couldn't.
You could take a seat on the front or somewhere near the front, and people could simply say, move back.
There's a white person that needs your seat.
And then you move back.
And if another came on, move back.
There's another white person that needs your seat.
This is true history.
This is the history that's untold.
So Dr. King led the boycott.
Rosa Parks started the initiative.
But it was Claudette Colvin who took the lawsuit to the Supreme Court that eventually, well, the lawsuit was filed that eventually caused a judge, Frank M. Johnson, to rule that that line had to be segregated.
Claudette Colvin has been denied her place in history.
Very little is said about her.
Now I'd like to contemporize, and this is going to give people an understanding as to how this pattern of denying black people their proper place in history, this pattern of stealing legacies, of whitewashing history as it relates to black people, and it happens to people of color, not just black people, people of color.
It has happened in this country.
So let's now contemporize as it relates to black history and talk about something that happened in the state of Texas.
We have a president of the United States, a president of the United States, who concluded that he had to have five more seats for the Republican side in Congress.
Five more seats to hold on to power.
Five more seats to continue to be the reckless, ruthless, lawless president that he is.
Five more seats, because if he loses the House, he loses his ability to do many of the things that the House can constrain him and prevent him from doing because the House controls the purse strings.
So he said, I want five seats.
And four of the five that he actually identified were minority coalition seats where minority people were electing the persons of their choice.
And they were electing minority people.
Well, he wanted five, four of the five being these seats that could elect minority people, minority people coalescing to elect people.
Legitimate thing for people to do.
Well, in so doing, he ordered the governor to do this.
The governor got with the attorney general.
The two of them worked it out such that seats were taken in Texas.
I'm going to just focus on one of them.
In Houston, Texas, we had the 18th Congressional District, historic, as it is called quite often, and I concur with the persons who would call it such.
the historic 18th congressional district.
The 18th congressional district, the district of Barbara Jordan, district that had the great Craig Washington, Mickey Leland, Sheila Jackson Lee, Sylvester Turner, the 18th congressional district, historic, historic congressional district.
The 18th congressional district was adjacent to the 9th congressional district.
We'll call it for our purposes today the old 18th congressional district, and you'll understand better why in just a moment.
Located adjacent to the 9th congressional district.
In fact, if you look north and south, the 18th was at the top and the 9th was under the 18th.
The 9th congressional district was one that elected a person of color as well.
Well, the president and the governor decided that they would do something called a crack.
This is where you break a district and then you pack, you take it and you push persons in those two districts together, but in so doing, you eliminate a district.
In this case, that's what they did.
So they cracked and they packed, they stacked, they put the 9th and the 18th together.
And when they put the 9th and the 18th together, they eliminated the possibility for a person of color to be elected in the 9th district by moving the lines for it over to another area.
Now, I shouldn't say eliminate.
Anything can happen.
And my belief is that there are capable, competent, and qualified people running.
But the prognostication is that the configuration of it in terms of the numbers is likely to elect a conservative person.
Probably a very conservative person.
But my hope is that won't happen.
But in any event, coming back to the 9th and the 18th, when they combined these two districts, they eliminated the possibility for the people of these two districts to have two representatives in Congress.
They eliminated that possibility and they made it possible for only one to come from these two districts.
Only one person from the 18th and the 9th.
Only one.
And when they combined them such that only one person could be elected from the two, that eliminated the possibility of another minority person being elected.
Historically, a black person has represented the ninth and black people have represented the 18th in Congress.
When this was done, if you look at it just numerically, the people of the 9th are losing a representative if you look at numbers.
But if you look at it deeply within what happened, they put more of the people from the 9th district in this new 18th than from the old 18th district.
So approximately two-thirds of the people in this 9th district are from, or in the new 18th district.
So now you have a district with 18 on it as its number that is packed with people from District 9.
Another way to look at it to simplify.
If you have a pie, two pies, and you take a slice out of one pie and you decide you're going to add it to another pie, but only take two slices from the other, and then you combine them to create, let's say, a pie, two pieces of pie, three pieces of pie, that would be two pieces from the ninth district creating this pie and one piece from the 18th.
That's almost what has happened here, if not exactly what has happened.
Two-thirds of this 18th consists of people from the 9th congressional district.
Now, why is this such a dastardly thing?
Because in Texas, we have struggled for minority people to have representation from white primaries.
And a person in Houston, Texas took the case all the way to the Supreme Court.
His name was Lonnie Smith.
He was a dentist.
Took it all the way to the Supreme Court to defeat white primaries.
And when the Supreme Court said, no, you can't have white primaries, what did Texas do?
Texas decided to have white pre-primaries.
True story.
White pre-primaries.
Had to go all the way back to the Supreme Court and said, no, Texas, if you can't have white primaries, you can't have white pre-primaries.
So this is something that is consistent in Texas in terms of its behavior as it relates to people of color having proper representation in Congress.
So we now have a circumstance where but one person of color will now be represented coming from the Houston area because of these two districts, but one will come from the two districts that have been combined.
And here is what I have done.
For our Black History Month, I believe that people who do such dastardly things ought to be recorded in history for their dastardly deeds.
That is dastard with a D, not a B.
They should be recorded in history as the dastards they are.
That's with the B.
No, excuse me, that's with the D. As the dastards they are.
They should be recorded.
So let's talk about the dastards that have perpetrated this invidious discrimination on the people of the 18th and 9th congressional districts.
The first dastard to be dealt with is, of course, the President of the United States.
So I have a resolution that condemns President Donald Trump for ordering an unprecedented mid-cycle racist redistricting effort in Texas.
Mid-cycle, racist redistricting in Texas.
President Trump, I have this resolution because a court concluded that it was racist.
The court concluded under the leadership of the, I say leadership, the judge who handed the opinion out, who penned the opinion, a conservative judge, I might add, federal judge.
This conservative federal judge concluded that this was, the lines were racially drawn, racially drawn.
And with the lines being racially drawn, this means that they were using racist tactics.
So we want to condemn what the judge found to be the case in Texas from the three-judge panel, that this is racist.
This is what a three-judge panel concluded.
This is racist.
So we have a resolution condemning the president for this racist behavior, as we should.
We want history to know who these dastards are.
The President of the United States of America, five seats, and make sure that in Texas you combine a couple of them and that's what was done.
A couple of them combined so that one representative is lost to a minority community.
Well, they didn't stop there.
As I said, the governor performed this dastardly deed.
And for doing this, governor, you should be properly recognized in history for the dastardly deed that you have done.
I have a resolution that will honor you as such, Governor.
This is a resolution that condemns Texas Governor Greg Abbott for delaying the election in Texas, 18th congressional district, beyond a reasonable time.
President ordered it.
The governor followed through, but he didn't stop there.
The governor decided that he would delay the election for a representative for the new 18th congressional district.
Remember, we have the old one that will no longer exist after this year, and the new one, which will then move forward, that has been come where we have two districts combined.
Well, the governor didn't start with just combining the districts.
He decided that he would delay the election for almost a year.
And just recently, a person was elected to represent this new 18th, this old 18th congressional district.
And now we have an election coming up for the new 18th congressional district.
If it sounds confusing, it is.
On March 3rd, there will be an election for the new district, but the governor delayed the election for the old district for almost one year.
And it was just recently that we had the election for the old 18th congressional district.
So for this, governor, for your dastardly deed, we made a record, and we are going to honor you for what you have done in delaying the election for some unreasonable amount of time.
History ought to know who you are and what you did.
But we're not going to stop there.
We have to now recognize that there are some other dastards involved here.
We already acknowledged the president as a dastard.
The governor of the state of Texas is a dastard.
Now we have to talk about the Houston Chronicle.
The Houston Chronicle.
The Houston Chronicle, for whatever reasons, wittingly or unwittingly, has joined forces with these two dastards.
And the Houston Chronicle has published stories, many of them, wherein they have indicated in the stories that two members of Congress passed and they did, and that as a result of these two members passing, the Houston Chronicle believes that age-ism is an appropriate thing for them to express continually in their newspaper, the Houston Chronicle, engaging in what I call ageism.
And if you read the stories carefully, I think you'll come to the same conclusion.
So they've decided they will engage in this ageism.
And here's what they have done.
They continually write stories wherein they talk about the death of these two iconic persons, two great heroes in Texas history.
And we don't want their stories diminished in any way.
That would be the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee and the Honorable Sylvester Turner.
The Houston Chronicle, one of the dastards, Houston Chronicle, engaging in ageism.
And here's how they're doing it.
The Houston Chronicle has concluded that ageism is appropriate because the two persons that preceded the person who's running now, they died while in office.
And somehow they have decided that to charge their deaths with this month-long, many months-long, almost one-year-long delay in an election.
They talk about their deaths and convince people that you've got to be careful.
People can die.
So if the next person dies, the governor would do the same thing.
Rather than blame the governor, solely, they have now transferred some of this to the persons who died.
This is the Houston Chronicle.
Ageism by saying that people don't want to have another person who is of a certain age because if you do that, then that person might die.
Who can guarantee life?
No one knows for whom the bell will toll next.
No one can guarantee life.
Young people die every day.
No one can know.
But the Houston Chronicle has made it their mission to campaign on this issue.
And here's what's interesting about what the Chronicle is doing.
They only apply that theory to a person of color.
Senator Cornyn is running.
Senator Cornyn wins, he gets a six-year term.
Senator Cornyn will be among the oldest in the Senate.
But they don't apply that to Senator Cornyn.
They've not tried to pressure Senator Cornyn out of a race.
In fact, they've endorsed Senator Cornyn.
They've gone so far as to endorse Senator Cornyn.
Senator Cornyn has Wesley Hunt running.
He's a younger person.
They haven't said, Y'all are elect Wesley Hunt.
No, they've said, elect John Cornyn.
What is it about these two people that makes them different from the other scenario that I've called to your attention?
What is it, Houston Chronicle?
Yes, you're going to see this, you're going to see me.
I do not fear the Houston Chronicle.
What is it about this that allows them to do exactly what they've done?
Well, Wesley Hunt happens to be a person of color.
John Cornyn happens to be a white man.
The Houston Chronicle has a different standard when it comes to John Cornyn.
Well, for your dastardly deeds, Houston Chronicle, you too will be recorded in history with a resolution.
Now, I want to say just a few more words about these people that they have demeaned.
First, you heard me mention Al Edwards earlier.
He's the father of Juneteenth, the father of Juneteenth.
We have a resolution honoring him as such.
And Sylvester Turner, a person who united diverse communities in Houston for eight years as mayor.
We have a resolution honoring him for his being that person who created a symbiosis in Houston, having people of different hues, different ethnicities from different places around the world come together.
And finally, we have a resolution honoring the life and enduring public service of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee.
I, person of pronoun, will not allow their legacies to be stolen.
I will not.
And I will not allow dastards not to be recorded as they properly should be in history.
They will not escape history.
Mr. President, you won't escape history.
Mr. Governor, you won't escape history.
Houston Chronicle, you won't escape history.
And now, I want to say just a word about the top culprit in the process.
That would be the president.
The president is the biggest dastard in the country.
President Donald Trump.
Dastard number one.
This says countdown to impeachment.
This is the president of the United States of America seated here.
I'm proud to tell you that I stood right over there and I told the president to his face, You don't have a mandate to cut Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.
This was at a joint session of Congress.
And this dastard said that they weren't going to do it.
And lo and behold, the dastard did it.
They cut about a trillion dollars out of health care.
This is the dastard that perpetrated the deed.
He ought to be recognized in history as the person who did the greatest injustice to health care the country has ever seen.
Donald John Trump.
But he's gone beyond this.
His behavior is something that is difficult to codify, difficult to explain.
But I will tell you this.
He went too far just recently.
He's gone too far on many other occasions.
But recently he went too far again.
This time, this dastard, Donald John Trump, set out a meme wherein he had the agall, unmitigated as we say, where he had just the low down,
dirty instinct to send out, to post a picture of the honorable President Barack Obama and the First Lady Michelle Obama to picture them as members of the primate family.
That's what this dastard did to two of our heroes of black history.
If he had his way, there would be no black history.
He's the person who has decided that black history is going to be minimized because we talk too much about slavery.
He wants slavery to be whitewashed.
There are people in Texas who call it involuntary relocation.
Murder, rape, 240 years of working without a paycheck, involuntary relocation.
Well, this dastard supports these kinds of things.
This dastard.
That's why we have this across the top of this poster.
Three words.
Countdown to impeachment.
Countdown to impeachment.
Yes, Mr. President, I don't speak for anybody but myself.
I don't speak for any party.
I don't speak for anyone, well, except myself and everybody who agrees with me.
That's who I speak for.
And Mr. President, not only are you a subject of impeachment, but now Ms. Noam is a subject of impeachment.
Yes, Ms. Noam, I've signed articles of impeachment against you.
And my hope is that if you don't do what you should do, in my opinion, which is resign, and I don't think the president would ever fire you, but you have blood on your hands.
And you have tried your best to cover up what happened when two American citizens who were unarmed lost their lives at the hands of the constabulary.
You got blood on your hands.
You should be impeached.
But you also should go to jail because you tried to cover it up.
There is a law that deals with this kind of behavior when you know that a felony has been presented, committed.
You know that a felony has been committed and you don't report that felony and then you try to cover it up.
That's a crime.
Somebody ought to check out 18 USC, Section 4.
Yes, you committed a crime.
You ought to be locked up.
People on the other side are notorious for having said, lock her up, talking about a Democrat.
Well, here's your chance to repeat your chant.
Lock her up.
Lock her up.
Lock up Ms. Noam for what she has done.
Impeach Ms. Noam is what we should do.
But aside from impeaching her, she gets her marching orders from this dastard.
He has to be impeached too.
We cannot allow this to go unnoticed, unchallenged.
I cannot.
I say we, and all of the people who agree with me.
Now, there are a good many who do not.
I don't want to discredit them in any way.
But I cannot.
So yes, we are in a countdown to another impeachment.
I'm going to call this the Black History Month impeachment because I'm going to deal with the racism that this president perpetuates, the racism that he perpetrates, the racism that he places in policies that are harmful to the American public.
I'm going to deal with that.
And then we'll give people a chance to decide.
Was it as bad as you say it was?
You've been on television talking about how this horrible deed was perpetrated by this dastard.
Well, let's see if you really believe what you've said.
Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for speaking ill of Congress.
So don't say you can't impeach for this kind of dastardly behavior from this dastard.
Don't say that you can't do it because we've seen it done.
We've seen it done by people who were closer to the drafting of the Constitution than we were.
So they probably had a better sense of what impeachment was all about than these so-called scholars who have decided that impeachment has to have so many lofty goals achieved before you should bring articles.
Not true.
Whatever the House says impeachment is, that's what it is.
It's not appealable.
It's a political question.
It's not something that requires a violation of a statutory law.
So if you believe what you have been propagating when you say that this was such a bad thing that the president did with these memes, then we'll give you an opportunity to express that here on the floor of the Congress of the United States of America.
I just believe we have an obligation to do this.
I don't think that we should stand by, we meaning the people who agree with me.
People who don't agree, they'll do what they do.
That's okay with me.
I'm going to vote my conscience.
I ask others to vote theirs.
Just vote your conscience.
That's all I ask.
And if we vote our conscience, I would hope that in the end, maybe not today, but someday.
Stevie Wonder has a song where he says, someday at Christmas time, well, maybe someday in the near future, in my lifetime, this dastard will be impeached.
But I guarantee you this, the record will show that at least one member, one member, stood right here in this house and read articles of impeachment to remove this dastard from office for the racism that he perpetrates and perpetuates.
And for edification purposes, those who tolerate racism perpetuate racism.
Tolerate it and you perpetuate it.
I will not tolerate it.
And of course, there are those who will always say, Al, you stand alone.
My dear friends, on some issues, it is better to stand alone than not stand at all.
I wanted to discuss two votes that occurred this week that have been broadly characterized as relating to tariffs.
But the issues are a little more nuanced than they've generally been portrayed.
So let's start with the vote that occurred on Wednesday.
It's always good to look at the actual text because that, at the end of the day, is the only thing that matters.
This was a vote on a rule, which is a kind of arcane procedural mechanism that we have here in the House for bringing bills to the floor for consideration and setting the terms of debate.
So when you vote on the rule, you're not voting on the bills themselves.
You're just bringing them to the floor where they will eventually be voted on.
And there's this norm of voting in favor of rules, which I have always done, because if you don't do that, then the business of the House grounds to a halt.
But the only times in which I haven't done that are when the form of a rule, the mechanism of a rule, is abused for some purpose that actually impacts policy.
And that's what we had in this particular rule.
At the end of it, which was a normal rule for most purposes, but then at the very end, you had tacked on this peculiar provision, which starts by saying that each day during the period from February 10th, 2026 through July 31st, 2026 shall not constitute a calendar day.
So that is a little odd on the face of it, right?
Simply fiating that somehow these months in the calendar year, February 11th, February 12th, February 13th, and so on, all the way through July 31st, are somehow now by legislative decree not days.
Now, I had actually voted against this very same provision in November when the only thing that was different was the dates.
And as a matter of fact, there were enough votes to stop that rule from taking effect when we originally voted on it in November.
But then there was a huddle among House leadership and some of those who were opposed to it.
And I won't get into the nature of what was discussed, but you can sort of connect the dots because after this rule passed, there was then another one that changed the end date, in that case, from March 31st to January 30th.
So January 30th was set to be the agreed upon end date for this accounting trick.
So I was pretty surprised when January 30th comes and goes, and then we get this new provision saying, no, we're actually now going to extend this all the way out to July 31st.
But let's go further in the text here.
It says that these months shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to various resolutions declaring a national emergency.
So the National Emergency Act is a statute that gives the President the power to declare a state of emergency.
It also gives Congress not just the power but the obligation to evaluate every six months months whether we are still in a state of emergency.
Congress shall consider it is what it says.
So for example, a few years ago, this is how we terminated the COVID state of emergency.
I was a co-sponsor of that resolution actually, and it actually got so much bipartisan support in the House that President Biden, even though he was initially opposed, signed it into law.
That is how the COVID emergency was brought to an end.
So in this case, we were being asked with this language here to say that you are not allowed to do that.
Congress will be cut out of its statutory role in evaluating whether we still have an emergency for these designated emergencies and for this designated period of time.
And as such, it was limiting the power of our members to weigh in on these very important questions.
And this runs contrary to everything I've ever believed when it comes to states of emergency.
When I was in the legislature in California, and even in the early days of COVID, I was very much opposed to the legislature having no role in determining whether we were in a state of emergency.
And I introduced a resolution and tried to get a vote many times on whether or not the state of emergency should continue.
And so of course, I would not support cutting Congress out of that process entirely here.
In effect, what we were being asked to do with this very peculiar provision was to abuse the procedural vehicle known as a rule to legislate a fiction that a day is not a day, to countenance endless emergencies, endless states of emergency, without congressional oversight in defiance of every principle I've ever fought for, and to surrender our own power as members of the House in relation both to our own leadership and the executive branch.
And that is something I was not going to do, and there was bipartisan support that this was not a good idea.
So the rule did not pass, meaning that this accounting trick of a day is not a day is no longer in effect.
And as such, a resolution has now ripened regarding one particular state of emergency.
This is to say, Congress playing the role that is in law that every six months it should evaluate whether an emergency still exists.
So this is what we voted on yesterday.
This was Congress exercising its statutory responsibility to determine whether an emergency declared by the president is still in effect.
Now, because we've had these delays in terms of Congress doing this, it's actually been a year since this particular emergency was declared by the president on February 1st, 2025.
Now, if you look at the language of this, this is the entire bill, the entire resolution, it simply says that the national emergency declared by finding of the president is hereby terminated.
So the question on its face is not about whether tariffs are good or bad.
It's not even about whether tariffs are a valid emergency power.
That's the question that the Supreme Court is considering.
Rather, it was about this particular executive order a year ago, which was titled as follows.
Imposing duties to address the flow of illicit drugs across our northern border.
So the national emergency declared by the president was about fentanyl coming into the United States from Canada.
Now, we can debate whether or not that was truly an emergency at the time that it was declared, given that a tiny fraction of the fentanyl that comes into our country, maybe 1% or so, does come from Canada.
Now, fentanyl itself, of course, is the most severe of emergencies for our country, but the specific question is whether the fentanyl coming from Canada is.
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that it was an emergency at that time.
After all, the president does have broad discretion in terms of declaring an emergency.
The question for us in Congress, one year later, in exercising our statutory responsibility to evaluate this question, is whether there is still an emergency.
And I listened to the debate on this issue with an open mind, and I heard the comments of our very capable chair of the Homeland Security Committee here in the House saying that actually Canada has taken significant efforts to crack down on fentanyl since this executive order was issued.
They have devoted $1.2 billion to it.
They have stepped up internal enforcement.
They have appointed a fentanyl.
They've cracked down on precursor chemicals coming in.
There's way more fentanyl being seized at their border now.
By some estimates, there's been a 97% reduction in fentanyl going over the border.
So it would appear that if the tariffs were designed to encourage Canada to take this issue of fentanyl crossing the border more seriously, they have been very effective in that respect.
And as such, the basis for the emergency that was declared does not appear to me to exist at this time.
And of course, it's also appropriate to consider the actual effect of the emergency power being asserted, which in this case is, of course, the tariffs.
Now, I would argue that with respect to Canada, there are unique considerations at play.
For example, the fact that we have a pretty recently signed free trade agreement, the fact that this is our neighbor, and the fact that there are unique impacts both in terms of the tariffs and the retaliatory tariffs when it comes to cars and construction and energy.
So that is to say that if there are any other such votes on other declared emergencies that have been used to impose tariffs, I will evaluate the facts of each case individually in deciding how to vote.
Now, of course, the Supreme Court will be weighing in on a related issue very shortly, which is whether tariffs are a valid emergency power that Congress has legitimately delegated to the executive branch when a national emergency has been declared.
However, that case might turn out, I do believe this, that it is in the national interest for important matters of economic and national security policy to be considered and debated by the House of Representatives.
And the view of our leadership that such matters should not even be allowed to be debated on this floor was, I believe, the wrong thing for our institution.
I want to address one more topic today, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce I am introducing the Gas Price Reduction Act, or the Gas Tax Reduction Act, I should say, which will, for California residents, lower the price of gas.
The reality of life in California is this, that we have the highest cost of living of any state in the country.
We are the most unaffordable state.
And a big reason for that is because our gas prices are so much higher than anywhere else in the country.
And there are various reasons why they are so much higher, and in fact, they're going to get even higher with refinery closures that are happening.
But a big part of the equation is that we have a much higher gas tax than anywhere else in the United States, 71 cents per gallon.
All of this money, by the way, is supposed to be going towards transportation.
So you'd think we would have these beautiful roads throughout California.
But quite the contrary, our roads are routinely rated as among the very worst in the country.
So when you pay the highest gas tax while driving over the deepest potholes, something is very wrong.
So I've introduced a simple bill that puts a national cap on state gas taxes.
There are only a few states right now that have over 50 cent gas taxes.
So I figured that that is a good maximum.
That no state should be able to force its citizens to pay more than 50 cents a gallon for gasoline.
This will immediately save California drivers 21 cents a gallon and will prevent the tax from continuing to be raised by state politicians.
The way we're doing this is very well, has several precedents and is actually fairly routine, where we have federal highway funds that come with a number of strings attached, a number of conditions.
For example, states have to abide by the 21-year-old minimum age for alcohol, various drunk driving laws, various vehicle weight laws, all of which are a condition of receiving federal highway funds.
And the mechanism here is exactly the same: that states, as a condition of receiving their federal highway funds, shall not impose a gas tax higher than 50 cents on their residents.
I think this will give our drivers, especially those who have to commute a long way to work, who live in rural areas, some much-needed relief and be a much-needed check and balance against the politicians in Sacramento who continue to demand of citizens more and more of their tax dollars while delivering less and less in return.
Pursuant to clause 13 of rule one, the house stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.
unidentified
The House passed legislation today to exempt so-called less-than-lethal law enforcement devices from certain restrictions, including stun guns and tasers.
It now heads to the Senate for consideration.
And House members still waiting on the Senate to take action on a bill to fund the Homeland Security Department before tomorrow night's midnight deadline.
Lawmakers have been trying to reach agreement since last week as Democrats continue to push for changes to immigration enforcement operations.
Expect a procedural vote on that legislation in the Senate later today.
It's uncertain when or if the bill will make it to the House before Friday's deadline to prevent a partial shutdown.
State of the Union Address00:03:15
unidentified
When the House does return, follow our live coverage here on C-SPAN.
This afternoon, President Trump will be joined by EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to announce an end to the Environmental Agency's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
The regulations fall under what's known as an endangerment finding, which is an Obama-era policy that determined carbon dioxide and other gases presented a potential danger to public health.
We'll have live coverage of the announcement on C-SPAN.
Also on C-SPAN Now, our free mobile video app and online at c-span.org.
And we are going to renew unlimited promise of the American dream.
Every single day, we will stand up and we will fight, fight, fight for the country our citizens believe in.
unidentified
Watch the C-SPAN Networks live Tuesday, February 24th, as President Donald Trump delivers the annual State of the Union address before a joint session of Congress.
The speech will mark President Trump's first State of the Union of his second term.
The State of the Union Address.
Live Tuesday, February 24th.
Our coverage starts at 7 p.m. Eastern on the C-SPAN Networks.
C-SPAN, bringing you democracy unfiltered.
Watch America's Book Club, C-SPAN's bold original series.
Sunday, best-selling biographer Walter Isaacson, who chronicles history's most remarkable lives.
His books include Benjamin Franklin, Steve Jobs, and Einstein.
He joins our host, renowned author and civic leader David Rubenstein.
And one of the things that struck me when I wrote about Benjamin Franklin early on was what a great scientist and technologist he was.
unidentified
Watch America's Book Club with Walter Isaacson.
Sundays at 6 p.m. and 9 p.m. Eastern and Pacific.
Only on C-SPAN. Democracy.
It isn't just an idea.
It's a process.
A process shaped by leaders elected to the highest offices and entrusted to a select few with guarding its basic principles.
It's where debates unfold, decisions are made, and the nation's course is charted.
Democracy in real time.
This is your government at work.
This is C-SPAN, giving you your democracy unfiltered.
Up next, projections for the U.S. economy from Congressional Budget Office Director Philip Swagel.
He outlines how rising tariffs, a decrease in immigration, and the growing influence of artificial intelligence could affect the deficit and interest rates.