LEGISLATIVE DAY OF APRIL 15, 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Floor U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 4
Thank you, mister speaker. On Easter Sunday, president Donald Trump, secretary of war, Pete Hagsett, and chairman of joint chiefs of staff, Dan King, completed a successful mission to rescue two American airmen in Iran. Less than forty eight hours earlier, American fighter jet had been shot down by a shoulder fired missile as part of Operation Epic Fury. A rescue was launched immediately, locating one pilot within hours. However, the second crew member landed much further away complicating recovery efforts.
Marie Perez
Despite this challenge, President Donald Trump emphasized the promise that no man is left behind. He correctly described the mission as one of the largest, most complex, most harrowing combat research message, rescues missions ever attempted by the military, end of quote. As the grateful father of four sons who've served in The Middle East, I especially appreciate president Donald Trump. 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 and mocking Trump.
Speaker 4
As war criminal Putin facilitates the Chinese Communist Party providing shouldered, launched missiles through the port of, Black Sea port of the Republic of Georgia collaborating with the illegitimate regime, of of the, rigged elections in Tbilisi to kill American pilots. With this, I yield yield back. Thank you.
Brian Mast
Mister speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be an order at any time to consider HCON RES 40 in the house if called up by the chair of the committee on foreign affairs or his designee that the concurrent resolution be considered as read and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion except for one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by representative Mast of Florida, representative Meeks of New York, or their respective designees. Without objection.
George Latimer
Mister speaker, I rise today to speak about the urgent need to address the worsening air pollution problem in this country and in my home area of New York. Like many Americans, I remember the blanket of orange smoke that covered our skies throughout the 2023 as a result of the horrific Canadian wildfires. Recently, had the opportunity to meet with students from Columbia University, advocating for the creation of clean air centers and air filtration systems for low income individuals and those with pre existing conditions like congenital heart disease. We all have a moral duty to protect the well-being of Americans across this country from all forms of pollution from the East Coast to the West Coast and in between. From the floor of the House of Representatives, I urge my colleagues to take action to address the growing severity and protect American from dangerous air pollution.
Thomas Tiffany
Vote no on bills that will make it easier for polluters to pollute. Thank you, mister speaker, and I yield back.
Nicholas Langworthy
Thank you, mister speaker. I rise today to honor Saint John Evangelical Lutheran Church of Merrill, Wisconsin on its hundred and fiftieth anniversary. First organized by families of German immigrants in a meeting on 04/24/1876. Services were held in a public schoolhouse in the town of Jenny, Wisconsin, which later became Merrill. Saint John Evangelical has had two subsequent structures within Merrill, and since 1953, has worshiped within a beautiful stone edifice on 1104 East 3rd Street.
Thomas Tiffany
During its first years, it shared a pastor with neighboring churches and finally called on its first pastor, reverend Paul Luckey, on 08/05/1883. Today, the members of Saint John are proud of their continued provision of a day care facility and an educational resource for their community in a parochial school. During several decades of its existence, German was the church's primary language. With the close of World War one, the congregation had transitioned to holding its services primarily in English. For continuing its work of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ through one hundred and fifty years, It is my great pleasure to honor Saint John Evangelical Lutheran Church of Merrill today before the United States House of Representatives.
I yield back, mister speaker.
Marie Perez
Mister speaker, did they arise to call on the family of the German princess Zehlm about their land holdings in my district? In Waukeyekin County, Washington, our local hunters and fishermen are being squeezed out of the lands that they have hunted and fished on for generations, but not by wildfire or even by federal and state regulations this time, but by German royalty who is buying up land and prohibiting public access to places that we have hunted and fished on for generations. It was reported last month that the German royals now control 7.3% of Waukaiakum County. Now, our local economies and way of life are at risk. I've been told by some in my community that frustrations are so high that without resolution, there can only be a violent boiling point.
The Pacific Northwest is no stranger to this kind of interference, but at the hands of a management company whose investors are halfway around the world, this shows something has gone deeply wrong with how we think about and regulate land and local ownership. This cultural fabric of our community is ours to live off the land, to invest back into it. Loyalty to place is grounding and necessary practice in this fractured and polarized world. I call on the German royal family to engage with my constituents and revise their hunting access regulations. And, mister speaker, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Expand. For what purpose For what purposes, gentlemen from Nebraska seek recognition?
Mike Flood
To address the house for five minutes and to amend and revise my comments. Does
Speaker 1
Does the gentleman will suspend? Request to recognize speak to the house for one minute? Yes. I do. Without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
Mike Flood
Mister speaker, I rise today to recognize an often overlooked segment of our nation's legal profession, rural lawyers. Across the 1st District and in communities throughout our state, rural lawyers represent the very best of the profession, selfless service, and meaningful local impact. Today, want to recognize the outstanding career of Shane Plasik of Fremont. While Shane practices in a range of areas, he has earned a particular respect among his peers for his work in domestic law. Shane's skill and tenacity are deeply appreciated by his clients, respected by judges.
Even the counsel on the other side appreciates him Through his preparation, his professionalism, and record of of success, it demonstrates his unwavering dedication to families navigating difficult times. A proud son of Fremont, Shane returned to his hometown after earning his JD from the University of Minnesota, choosing to serve the very community that shaped him. It's a privilege to recognize Shane's distinguished career, which reflects the hard work, integrity, and grit that defined rural lawyers across our state. I yield back.
Speaker 1
The gentleman will suspend. For what purposes the does the gentleman wish to speak for one minute?
Rashida Tlaib
I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise my remarks.
Rashida Tlaib
I am deeply proud to serve not only as an unapologetic Arab American woman in congress, but to represent one of the largest Arab American communities in our country. That's why I'm introducing a resolution recognizing April as Arab American Heritage Month. This month, we must recognize the rich history, culture, and achievements of Arab Americans all across our country. I know it's been an incredibly difficult time for many of our families, especially those loved ones in Lebanon and Palestine. But even in the midst of pain and uncertainty, let us all continue to show up for each other, speak out against injustices, and care for each other with compassion and solidarity.
And mister speaker, I'm sure you will agree that this is a time, this is a month, again, to acknowledge the contributions, inventions, and support, not only building businesses and showing up for communities and neighborhoods all across the country of Arab Americans. To all of the neighbors in Southeastern Michigan and beyond, happy Arab American Heritage Month. That, I yield.
Ralph Norman
Mister speaker, I rise today to celebrate the career of a true patriot. I rise today to recognize and honor a true public servant, chief Russell Roark, whose life has been defined by dedication, defined by integrity, and defined by exceptional service to the people of Union County and the entire state of South Carolina. Chief Rourke first began his career in public safety in 1962 when he joined the City of Union Fire Department. Just one year later, he joined the City of Union Police Department. Through hard work, through professionalism, and steady leadership, chief Rourke quickly advanced through the ranks becoming assistant chief of police in 1975 and then chief of police in 1982.
In 1983, he played a pivotal role in the merger of the city of Union Police and the fire departments into a single unified agency known as the Union Public Safety Department. He became his first director, and under his leadership, the department earned South Carolina law enforcement accreditation becoming the first law enforcement agency in Union County to achieve such distinction. Chief Warwick also made lasting improvements to the community fire service division emphasizing advanced training in the importance of strong fire prevention efforts. Thanks to his leadership, the department earned a class two ISO rating and achieved that enhanced public safety while reducing insurance costs for all the residences and businesses across the county. After forty years of service, chief
George Latimer
In conclusion, chief Roark is the definition of a true public servant. I yield.
Speaker 14
I ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute one minute and to revise and extend my remarks.
Speaker 14
Mister speaker, I rise today to honor the extraordinary life, legacy, and service of Jay Mason Davis, an attorney from Alabama, a towering figure in Alabama's legal community, and a steadfast advocate for justice, equality, and human dignity. Mister Davis passed away on 04/04/2026 at the age of 90, a profound loss for Alabama and for all who believe in the power of law to advance fairness and opportunity. Mister Davis pursued edgy his education with distinction, determination, graduating from Talladega College and later earning his law degree from Howard University School of Law. Mister Davis then returned to Alabama. He entered a legal landscape defined by segregation and entrenched inequality.
Rather than accept those conditions, he challenged them. He became one of the first black attorneys to practice in Birmingham's courts, and he used his skill, courage, and conviction to represent individuals and communities who had long been denied a voice. Beyond the courtroom, mister Davis was a mentor, a teacher, a a bridge builder. He served in legal leadership roles at the Alabama's most prestigious one of Alabama's most respected law firms and helped open doors for opportunity for young attorneys to follow in his footsteps. His contributions were numerous.
Robert Onder
Alabama is a better place because of Jay Mason Davis lived, worked, and served there. The legal profession is better because he insisted that it live up to its highest ideals, and our nation is better because he never stopped believing in the possibility of a more just and inclusive society. To his family, friends, colleagues, and all who shape who he shaped by his wisdom and generosity, we extend our deepest condolences. May they find comfort in knowing that his legacy endures in the laws that he changed, in the lives that he touched, and in the generation he led. I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the extraordinary life and legacy of Jay Mason Davis, an Alabama icon and a national treasure.
Speaker 1
For what purposes, the gentleman from Rhode Island seek recognition? I'm sorry. Excuse me. For what purposes, the gentleman from Pennsylvania seek recognition?
Brian Fitzpatrick
Mister speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Helen Humphreys, affectionately known by so many as the Duchess of Edgely, who passed away on 03/28/2026. A longtime resident of Humeville and Edgely, Helen was a woman whose life was defined by compassion, warmth, and an unmatched devotion to others. She built a successful career in the printing industry, loved her summers in Townsend Insulet, and remained a spirited, vibrant person as ever, even shooting before, better than her age on the golf course at 85 years old. But more than anything, Speaker, Helen will be remembered for the home and heart she shared so generously with others. Alongside her beloved husband Jim, she created a place of comfort, laughter, and belonging for family, friends, and neighbors alike.
Rashida Tlaib
Helen touched countless lives with her kindness, her humor, and her open door spirit. She will be deeply missed, and I'm proud to honor her memory here today. Mister speaker, I yield back.
Nicholas Langworthy
I'll address the house for one minute to revise and extend my remarks.
Nicholas Langworthy
Mister speaker, here's how you know that Washington is broken. Instead of voting to end the war, end the tariffs, lower health care costs, what are we doing? Yesterday, we debated 14 bills to rename post offices. This is why people think that congress sucks. Our congress, our house is supposed to be the envy of the world, but instead our current leadership is doing everything that they can to make us irrelevant.
Why? Money. The oil companies are making money off of the Iran war. The drug companies are making money. The president is getting money for his ballroom.
Joe Neguse
I wish that more people in Washington would figure out how to spend their time on lawmaking instead of moneymaking. We need to end this corruption. We need to pass a congressional stock trading ban, get dark money out of elections, and make this city work for the people again so that working Americans can afford to pay their bills. I yield back.
Joe Neguse
Mister speaker, school breakfasts and lunches are often the most nutritious meal a student eats in a day. That's why so many districts across the country are offering tastier, healthier meals. With our incredible Democratic whip, Katherine Clark, I visited one such school in Watertown, Massachusetts as part of my statewide n hunger now tour. We were treated to a tour of the Hosmer Elementary School by two bright second graders and enjoyed a delicious salad for lunch, featuring lettuce grown down the street by the students at Watertown's very own freight farm. The enthusiasm of the students about their locally grown nutritious school meals was infectious.
Mister speaker, this congress can help make sure that every single district across the country has first class school meal programs. We must pass my bill, the Healthy Meals Help Kids Learn Act, to increase funding for school meal programs. We must also reverse the devastating Trump administration cuts to local and school food programs that improve access to nutritious food. Together, we can improve nutrition, improve learning outcomes, and end hunger now. I yield back.
Melanie Stansbury
I ask for unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks.
Melanie Stansbury
Mister speaker, this administration is testing us. They are testing the truth, testing the law, but most importantly, they are testing our resolve in the Epstein case, and whether or not they can continue to lie and commit crimes right in front of our faces. Yesterday, Pam Bondi was ordered to appear in front of the oversight committee and did not come. Todd Blanche said he would not release any more files because perhaps they believe that Donald Trump's blanket pardons will excuse them and save their bacon. So let me be clear, you are breaking the law, and I hope you are getting ready to face contempt.
And to the survivors out there who have endured decades of injustice in this case, know that we are fighting, and while the road to justice may be long, we will not stop until we get it. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Members are reminded to address their comments to the chair. For what purposes the gentleman from Illinois seek recognition?
Speaker 20
Mister speaker, today I rise to honor an American giant second lieutenant, the honorable Jackie Robinson. On this Jackie Robinson day, we remember that when he stepped onto Ebbets Field on 04/15/1947, he broke not only the color barrier, he broke the racial segregation in the hierarchy of sports. He forced this nation to to confront its conscious. His courage, discipline, and unshakable dignity changed baseball forever, but more importantly, it changed America for the better. That is why it is disgusting when the Pentagon, under our current leadership, removed mention of Jackie Robinson's military service.
You cannot honor American history by erasing the very people who made it and mister O'Malley, the owner, and Jackie Robinson, the player. Jackie Robinson's legacy is not a DEI to be thrown away. It is patriotism. It is service to the country. It is sacrifice.
Nicholas Langworthy
It is the truth. Mister Jackie Robinson was court martialed for refusing to sit in the back of a segregated bus. You cannot understand American history without understanding the whole truth. Jackie Robinson proved diversity is not a weakness in this country, but is one of our greatest strengths. Equity dismantles barriers, allowing excellence to rise.
Speaker 20
Inclusion expands opportunity, so we as a country become stronger. Mister speaker, as we tell the full story of America, not a sanitized story, not an edited story, but the full story we give the next generation the courage to keep pushing forward, to keep breaking barriers, and
Speaker 1
to speak truth. Thank you, mister speaker. I yield back. The chair lays before the house of communication. The
Nicholas Langworthy
honorable the speaker, house of representative, sir, I hereby resign my position on the house committee on transportation and infrastructure effective 04/15/2026. I appreciated the honor to serve and look forward to delivering results for the house in other capacities. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Signed sincerely. Rudy Yacam the third, member of congress.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the resignation is accepted. What for what purposes, the gentleman from New York recognition?
Nicholas Langworthy
Mister speaker, by direction of the Republican conference, I send to the desk a privilege resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.
Speaker 1
Objection. The reading is dispensed with. And without objection, the resolution is agreed to, and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. Purposes, the gentleman from New York seek recognition.
Nicholas Langworthy
Mister speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, I call up house resolution eleven seventy four and ask for its immediate consideration.
Nicholas Langworthy
House calendar number 70, house resolution eleven seventy four, resolved. That upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be an order to consider in the house any bill specified in section two of this resolution. All points of order against consideration of each such bill are waived. Each such bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in each such bill are waived.
Speaker 4
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on each such bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce or their respective designees, and two, one motion to recommit. Section two, the bills referred to in the first section of this resolution are as follows. A, the bill h r sixty three eighty seven to amend the Clean Air Act to require revisions to regulations governing the review and handling of air quality monitoring data influenced by exceptional events or actions to mitigate wildfire risk. B, the bill h r sixty three ninety eight to amend the Clean Air Act relating to review by the Environmental Protection Agency of proposed legislation. C, the bill h r sixty four zero nine to amend the Clean Air Act to clarify standards for emissions emanating from outside of The United States and for other purposes.
Nicholas Langworthy
Section three, upon adoption of this resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the house a resolution, house resolution eleven fifty six, expressing support for tax policies that support working families. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means or their respective designees.
Nicholas Langworthy
For the purpose of debate only, I yield a customary thirty minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado, mister Nagous, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Nicholas Langworthy
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mister speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
Nicholas Langworthy
Last night, the Rules Committee reported out a rule, House Resolution eleven seventy four, that provides for consideration of four measures. The rule provides for the consideration of HR 6,387, HR 6,398, and HR 6,409, each under a closed rule with one hour of debate, each equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees, and provides for each bill one motion to recommit. The rule also provides for consideration of h res eleven fifty six, expressing support for tax policies that support working families under a closed rule with one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair in the ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit. Mister speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation. The rule before Us provides an opportunity for congress to rein in the regulatory overreach, restore common sense for our environmental policies, and to ensure that American communities are not punished for circumstances beyond their control.
For far too long, states, workers, and job creators have been forced to operate under a system that is overly rigid, increasingly bureaucratic, and disconnected from reality. Instead of working with states, federal regulators have imposed one size fits all policies that drive up costs, delay projects, and make it harder for communities to grow and to prosper. These measures begin to correct that course and put us on a more practical and more predictable path forward. Mister speaker, the rule provides for consideration of h r sixty four zero nine, the Fences Act. This legislation addresses a simple but important problem.
States are currently being penalized for emissions that they have absolutely no control over. That includes pollution originating from foreign countries like China, as well as natural events such as wildfires beyond our borders, yet under current policy, those emissions can still count against the state's ability to meet federal air quality standards. This is not how this should work, and we have seen the impact firsthand. In my home state of New York, Communities across Western New York and the Southern Tier have repeatedly experienced severe air quality impacts from Canadian wildfires. This has become a reoccurring issue year after year.
Smoke from wildfires in Ontario and Quebec have drifted south, triggering air quality alerts across our state. Families have been told to stay indoors. Schools, camps, outdoor events have been disrupted and canceled. What should be time spent outside during the summer has instead meant staying inside because of conditions beyond anyone's control locally. In parts of New York, we have seen some of the worst air quality readings in the entire country on these days.
And this does not affect just families. It affects local economies as well. Small businesses, outdoor workers, farmers, and manufacturers all feel the impact when air quality restrictions tighten because of pollution they did not create in the first place. And yet, under the current framework, those same communities can still face consequences. More regulation, more restrictions for conditions entirely outside of their control.
It makes no sense. Defenses Act restores the original intent of the Clear Air Act by making clear that foreign emissions, whether man made or natural, should not be used to penalize states when determining compliance. It allows states to account for those emissions earlier in the process, instead of forcing them into costly delays, stricter requirements, or potential federal penalties at the very end. Because the reality is simple, states like New York should not be punished for smoke coming from wildfires in another country like Canada. Mister speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.
6,387, the FIRE Act. Across the country, communities are dealing with the growing threat of wildfires, and at the same time, states are taking proactive steps to reduce the risk through prescribed burns, forest management, and other mitigation efforts. But under current law, those efforts can count against them when it comes to air quality compliance. Now think about that. States are being penalized for trying to prevent catastrophic wildfires.
This isn't just backwards. It creates a system that punishes proactive solutions and rewards inaction. Part of the problem is how the current system treats those emissions. While naturally occurring wildfires can sometimes be considered exceptional events, the very tools used to prevent those wildfires, like prescribed burns, are often treated the same as emissions from a factory. That is a clear gap in the law, and it leads to confusion, inconsistent decisions, and unnecessary delays for states trying to do the right thing.
The result is a system that discourages mitigation even though we know that proactive land management reduces the severity of wildfires and improves long term air quality. And the consequences are real. When states are discouraged from carrying out these efforts, the risk of larger, more destructive wildfires only increases, leading to worse air quality, greater damage, and higher costs for communities. The FIRE Act fixes this by ensuring that emissions from wildfire mitigation activities are treated appropriately under the Clean Air Act. It brings consistency on how we treat emissions from wildfires and from the efforts used to prevent them, and it provides states with the clarity and predictability that we need to plan and to act.
It also reduces unnecessary regulatory burdens on manufacturers in local communities, while still maintaining strong environmental protections for communities. This is about encouraging smart land management, reducing long term risk, and recognizing that proactive solutions should not be met with federal penalties. Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H. R.
Six thousand three and ninety eight, the Red Tape Act. This measure takes aim at a specific and unnecessary layer of federal bureaucracy that continues to slow down projects across the country. Right now, when a federal agency completes an environmental impact statement, the Environmental Protection Agency is required to conduct a separate review and publicly comment on that work, even in cases where the EPA has already been involved in developing it. That second review often covers the same exact ground. It adds time.
It adds cost. It adds uncertainty, and without meaningfully improving any outcomes. We do not have to look far to see how duplication and delay affect real projects. In Upstate New York, Micron announced a historic investment to bring advanced semiconductor manufacturing back to The United States, an investment expected to support thousands and thousands of good paying jobs and strengthen our domestic supply chain. This is exactly the kind of project we should be encouraging and putting a rocket booster on.
But like many large scale projects, it has to navigate a complex and very time consuming environmental review process across multiple levels of government. That is the broader issue. It's not about intensive identifying new risks. It's about how layers of review can stack on top of one another, adding delay in uncertainty even when high standards are already being met, and consequences are real. When projects like this one are delayed, jobs are delayed.
Investment is delayed, and our ability to compete globally, especially in critical industries like semiconductors, is put at risk at a time when we are trying to onshore these critical industries and strengthen our domestic supply chain. This is exactly what's wrong with this approach. The reality is that the agencies responsible for these projects already have the expertise and the legal responsibility to conduct thorough environmental reviews. They prepare detailed environmental impact statements, they consult with experts, and are accountable for the decisions that they make. The EPA is often already involved in that process as it develops.
What this bill addresses is the additional, duplicative step that comes after the work has already been completed. And nothing in this legislation prevents coordination or input during the review itself. It simply removes a redundant requirement that adds delay without adding value. Recent Supreme Court precedent has reinforced this approach, recognizing that the agencies responsible for a project are best positioned to evaluate its environmental impacts that that the scope of review should remain focused and practical. The red tape act reflects that reality.
It removes the duplicative requirement. It streamlines the process, and it ensures that projects that meet the standard can move forward without unnecessary delay. Because right now, too often, projects are not being stopped. They're just being slowed down by process. And finally, the rule provides for consideration of HRAS eleven fifty six.
Mister speaker, today is tax day, and families across the country are sitting down to file their returns and take a closer look at what they owe and what they keep. It's a significant day because it's a direct reminder of how the decisions that we make here in Washington show up in people's lives. Last year, House Republicans passed and the president signed into law h r one, the working families tax cut, one of the largest tax cuts for working and middle class Americans in history. The law prevented a $2,600,000,000,000 tax increase on families making less than $400,000 a year, and it continues to deliver real savings to millions of Americans. And today, as families file their taxes, they are seeing the impact of these policies firsthand.
For a family of four earning under $73,000, that can mean no federal income tax at all. And the relief is targeted where it matters the most. No tax on tips. No tax on overtime. Tax relief for our senior citizens in their golden years.
These are changes that show up directly in what families owe, what they keep, and how they plan for the year ahead. But mister speaker, this is just the beginning. In 2026 alone, this law is expected to deliver $191,000,000,000 in additional tax relief, putting more money back in the pockets of American families, including roughly a thousand more in refunds. Taxpayers are projected to take home an additional $91,000,000,000 in refunds and keep another 30,000,000,000 in their paychecks through reduced withholdings. And the benefits don't stop there.
This law locks in lower tax rates, strengthens the standard deduction, expands the child tax credit to $2,200 and indexes it to inflation, and provides continued relief through policy like no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and expanded support for child care, paid leave, and savings. These policies are helping families keep more of what they earn, plan for their future, and build greater financial stability. This resolution recognizes the impact of HR one and reaffirms our commitment to making sure working families come first. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mike Flood
Gentleman from New York reserves, the gentlelady from Colorado is the gentleman from Colorado is recognized. Thank
Joe Neguse
you, mister speaker. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Gentleman's recognized. Alright. Mister speaker, as you know, at the March, speaker Johnson gaveled out this chamber and sent members of congress home for a two week recess.
He did so despite the fact that the Department of Homeland Security has been shut down for sixty days and counting. Despite the fact that president Trump had made a reckless and unlawful declaration of war without congressional authorization despite soaring gas prices and the ongoing cost of living crisis stretching from New York, a home of my distinguished colleague, to Colorado. Despite the heat, the drought, and the wildfire records wildfire records being shattered in the Western United States, despite all of that, speaker Johnson made the decision to gavel the house out of session and send everybody home. And now we're back. Two week recess concluded.
What has the Republican majority decided is the most pressing challenge and issue for this August body to debate? I'll tell you, mister speaker. Apparently, it's a resolution commemorating a bill that Republicans passed last year. That's what we're here to debate. Republicans control the floor.
They could put a bill on the floor to address cost of living issues. They could put a bill on the floor to address soaring gas prices. They could put a bill on the floor to address rising health care costs. But instead, we're here to debate a commemorative resolution. It is absurd.
I have, over the course of the seven years that I've had the privilege of serving in the United States House, never seen quite something like this. It doesn't really take a resolution, mister speaker, for them to extol what they believe to be the benefits of the the bill that they passed last year, the tax bill, which we'll talk about today. But my point, mister speaker, is that this resolution is wholly unnecessary. There are better ways to spend our time. What's interesting, I will say, I heard the gentleman from New York's long description of the many reasons why that particular resolution that I referenced merits this body's passage.
What I found interesting is that the last fourteen months, I should say the last twelve months, I've come down here to the house floor and I have heard republicans use the same refrain in describing this bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It's in the law. For a year, I've heard nothing but tweets and true social posts and floor speeches extolling the virtues of the one big beautiful bill. But what is fascinating is that I didn't hear those four words today, this morning. I suspect I'm not gonna hear them the rest of today because republicans have spent some time and they've come up with a new name.
A new name, a rebrand. This bill that president Trump signed into law that gave tax cuts to the richest Americans among us is so unpopular that Republicans decided that they had to change the name. And I hate to break it to you, but I don't think the rebrand, mister speaker, is gonna work. I don't think the name is what the American people were frustrated by. What they are frustrated by is a bill that kicked off 15,000,000 Americans from their health care.
A bill that amounted to the largest cut in snap in the history of our country. A bill that added $5,000,000,000,000 over the next decade to the federal debt. That's what they're frustrated about. They they can call this bill. One big beautiful bill.
Now they're what's the name? Maybe the gentleman from New York will indulge me. Oh, no. Oh, got it. Working families tax cut.
That's what they're calling it now. I suspect in a few months, they'll change the name again because it's not going to change the unpopularity of their policies. Now I know this isn't the only resolution that we're debating today. As a gentleman from New York mentioned at great length, We're gonna consider three bills from the house committee on the energy and commerce, which seek to amend the clean air act in an effort to scale back regulations that protect air quality from pollutants and polluting industries. There is no debate that these policies could have wide ranging implications that would allow large swaths of The United States to be exempt from various rules under the Clean Air Act.
And I don't, to be candid, mister speaker, really follow the argument that my friend from New York is making. Because as I understand it, what he's saying is that there are wide swaths of the country, including in his home state, by the way, this applies to my home state as well. Where you have pollution that exceeds the standards that have been set by regulators at the national level. Pollution that is causing asthma and respiratory diseases for children. And the solution that they propose is to allow communities that are experiencing this kind of pollution to essentially exempt foreign sources of pollution from those standards so that they don't have to do anything about it.
That's their solution. It's not the air quality is not going to get any better. There will be no prophylactic steps taken by those communities. It's just a way for those communities to no longer have to do anything about pollution. It's absurd, and the American people know it.
Mister speaker, I would simply say, and I imagine we'll have a robust debate about the three bills and the resolution that I referenced, but fundamentally, I suppose if I were to conclude with with one overriding sentiment. It's that I'm simply asking my Republican colleagues to get serious. There are a lot of challenges facing the country. It is a difficult time for the families that I represent in Northern Colorado and in Western Colorado. Times are tough.
This house, I believe, could rise to the occasion and actually work together to get some things done for the American people, for the constituents that we all serve. This is not that. Spare us the commemorative resolutions honoring bills that you all have passed. Let's just skip those, and let's get back to doing the business that the American people expect us to do. And with that, mister speaker, I'm gonna urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule, and I'll reserve the balance of my time.
Mike Flood
The gentleman from Colorado reserves. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
Nicholas Langworthy
Well, thank you, mister speaker. You know, here we go again. Once again, the Democrats are trying to distract from the facts by recycling the same class warfare talking points even as Americans across the country are sitting down this week to file their taxes, and they see the reality for themselves. Families are running the numbers. They're looking at what they owe and what they keep.
Filing is simpler. And for working people, that matters. Republicans sign you know, pass this bill without a single democratic vote. It was signed into law by president Trump, and 91% of tax filers now have a simpler tax code. Families pay no federal income tax, and the first 31,031 thousand dollars that they earn, the standard deduction is locked and loaded and expanded, which means less paperwork, less time spent dealing with the IRS, and more money staying in families' budgets.
According to the Joint Commission Committee on Taxation, the biggest beneficiaries of this relief are workers and families making less than $50,000 a year. And that's why the rhetoric we keep hearing from Democrats, it doesn't line up with reality, especially for Americans sitting at their kitchen table filing their taxes right now. This is relief for the server pulling a double. The factory worker on the line trying to work a few extra hours of overtime. The barber running a small shop and and families trying to get ahead.
Now, unfortunately, while Republicans fought to ensure that hardworking Americans keep more of their paychecks because it's their money, not Uncle Sam's, Democrats under president Biden, they chose a different path. They flooded the post COVID economy with trillions of dollars in new spending. They overheated the economy, and they drove inflation to forty year highs. Working families were left to carry that burden that they still have a hangover on today. Rather than empowering the American people, Democrats prioritize massive giveaways to political allies through Green New Deal style programs that layers costly, ineffective regulations.
Those policies were not paid for in Washington. They were paid for by families at the gas pump and the grocery store. Mister speaker, president Trump and house Republicans have consistently worked to unleash the full potential of the American economy so that every American who works for a living can benefit. In stark contrast, Democrats in the last administration chose runaway spending, regulatory access, and leaving everyday Americans to pay the price through skyrocketing costs for basic necessities. Their policies hurt working families.
Republican policies have helped working families. And that brings us back to the rule before us today. This legislation before us makes sure that states are not punished for what they cannot control. Supports efforts to prevent disasters before they happen, not after. Cuts through red tape that delay jobs and investment and reinforces policies that help working families keep more of what they earn.
That's what's before the house today. And and and we're hearing concerns that this bill somehow weakens air quality protections or harms public health, but that misses what this legislation actually does. At its core, it's about fairness. Right now, states can be penalized for emissions that they have absolutely no control over. No one in Buffalo, New York or Western New York or the Southern tier has any impact on Canadian policy on how they manage their forests or why their forest catch on fire every summer.
Whether it's pollution coming from those foreign countries or background conditions beyond our control, that is not a system that makes sense. And when that happens, entire regions can fall out of compliance through no fault of their own, making it harder to build new facilities and modernize infrastructure, bring jobs back to communities that need them the most. And that has real consequences, not just for economic growth, but for the well-being of the people that live there. This bill fixes that problem. It ensures that states are judged based on what they can actually control while keeping the same underlying health based air quality standards fully in place.
Now let's be clear. Nothing in this legislation changes those standards. The protections remain. What we are addressing is how those standards are applied in the real world so that communities are not unfairly punished for and locked out of economic opportunity, and that matters because modernizing facilities here at home means cleaner technology, stronger environmental oversight, and fewer emissions being outsourced overseas. So while there are efforts to frame this as a rollback, it is actually about making the system workable, more predictable, and more grounded in reality.
That's what this bill does and that's why it's needed and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mike Flood
The gentleman from New York reserves the gentleman from Colorado is recognized. Thank you, mister speaker. Couple of points.
Joe Neguse
First, again, we've heard ad nauseam about the various ways in the view of my colleagues that the bill that they passed last year have benefited the American public. I disagree. My constituents disagree. But we're not debating that bill today. We're debating.
And for those who might be watching this, I encourage everybody. Look it up. H Res eleven fifty six. It's a two page resolution. It's not particularly long.
This resolution does nothing, achieves nothing, changes nothing. It is a commemorative resolution honoring a law that they passed last year. It is a waste of time. What are we doing? Seriously.
This is how the Republican majority chooses to spend its time? I mean, I wonder, mister speaker, what are we gonna do next week? Are you going to introduce a different commemorative resolution that honors of maybe this resolution that passes today? Maybe that's what we should count on, I guess. If this resolution passes today, mister Langworthy and I will debate next week a second resolution that honors this resolution.
Give me a break. There are better ways for the House of Representatives to spend its time. These are serious issues. Mister speaker, I yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great state of New Mexico, miss Stansbury. The gentlelady is recognized for three minutes.
Speaker 1
Mister speaker, I don't even know if I can dignify a response to the things that I've heard here this morning. Perhaps, we'll do another showerhead resolution or utilities or something like that. But it's very clear that there is a war in The Middle East, runaway inflation, out of control costs, a partial government shutdown, and a madman in the White House. And what are our colleagues across the aisle calling us here today to do? To gut the Clean Air Act, which is why I rise today in opposition to all three of these bills and in the strongest defense of the Clean Air Act, which is the bipartisan legislation that has protected the health of the American people and our planet for more than a half century.
Melanie Stansbury
It was passed in 1970 with bipartisan support from both Republicans and Democrats. It was born out of necessity when smog choked our cities and our communities suffered from unchecked pollution. It is delivered on a promise to the American people that no matter who you are or where you live, you have a fundamental human right to breathe clean air. There is nothing more basic than that right. It is a promise that has delivered.
It has saved millions of lives, prevented countless illnesses, and improved air quality across the country. But as we know, it is under a threat not just in this chamber, but by an administration that has rolled back standards, weakened emissions, undermined the authority of the EPA, and gutted our climate commitments. And now, at a time, especially in the West, when we are facing record drought, record heat, and dangerously low snowpack, what are you all doing with your time on the floor? You are trying to further gut the fundamental program that protects our communities and our planet. That is why I rise today to oppose these bills.
This is not permitting reform. This is gutting our right to breathe clean air. The fences act strips the EPA's authority. The fire act manipulates how air pollution is measured. And the red tape act is perhaps the most alarming of all as it would silence communities and allow federal projects to move forward without consideration to our public health and to the planet.
So mister speaker, let me just say this. The consequences of these bills are not abstract. They are measurable and they will be measured in lives and the well-being of our people and damages to our planet. Because the Clean Air Act exists to protect the fundamental right of every American, every human to breathe clean air. And that is why I oppose these bills unequivocally and for the sake of our children, our communities, and our future, I urge my colleagues to vote no on these bills today.
I yield back.
Mike Flood
The gentleman from Colorado Reserves, the gentleman from New York is recognized.
Nicholas Langworthy
Mister speaker, the democrats wanna lecture us on the environment, but let let's take a look at their record. For four years in the last administration, they pushed policies that were more about ideology than results. They drove up costs. They added layers of bureaucracy. They made it harder for states and communities to actually manage real environmental challenges.
They created a system that punishes states for factors outside of their controls. It discourages proactive solutions, slows down projects with duplicative and unnecessary reviews. That is not environmental leadership. It's regulatory overreach. Now under president Trump's leadership, we're taking a more practical approach.
We're focusing on policies that actually work, supporting states, encouraging prevention, and cutting through red tape that's held back progress for years. The difference is very clear. Democrats defend a system that's more complicated, more expensive, and less effective. Republicans are focused on making environmental policy more predictable, more efficient, and more grounded in reality. And mister speaker, that's exactly what the legislation in this rule does.
It makes clear that states shouldn't be penalized for emissions they can't control, including pollution from foreign countries and wildfire smoke drifting across our borders. It supports proactive wildfire mitigation instead of punishing states for taking steps to prevent catastrophic fires, and it removes duplicative federal review processes that slow down projects without improving environmental outcomes. It's not partisan. It's common sense. And and we've heard a lot from the other side that the EPA already has the tools to deal with wildfire emissions in that this bill is unnecessary.
It And if that were true, we would not be here today. The reality is the current system doesn't work. It's broken. And while EPA can exclude certain emissions as exceptional events, the process is complicated, time consuming, and in many cases, unworkable for states. And here's a real problem.
Under the current law, emissions from wildfire, you know, they can only qualify as exceptional events, but emissions from prescribed burns used to prevent those wildfires do not. Think about that. States are effectively penalized for taking proactive steps to reduce wildfire risk. That's just totally backwards. And as a result, many states don't even attempt to use the existing process because it's too burdensome, too uncertain, and too resource intensive.
And in fact, for years, states and local agencies were unable to successfully use this process for prescribed burns. So this isn't about creating a loophole. It's about fixing a system that's clearly not working. The fire act removes this barrier. It gives states the certainty they need to carry out responsible wildfire mitigation without risking noncompliance with federal air quality standards.
And that matters because prescribed burns are not the problem. They are part of the solution. They reduce the intensity of wildfires. They lower long term emissions, and they help prevent the devastating economic and environmental damage that we see from large scale fires like we saw in California. States should not have to choose between meeting air quality standards in preventing wildfires.
This bill makes sure they don't have to, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mike Flood
The gentleman from New York reserves the gentleman from Colorado is recognized.
Joe Neguse
Thank you, mister speaker. Just to be clear, I co chair the bipartisan wildfire caucus. I've worked with my Republican colleagues on a number of wildfire resiliency and forest management bills and proposals and securing funding. I will not be lectured by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as they work to defund the forest service, literally, about wildfire resiliency and and prescribed burns. There is no question that at least with respect to the FIRE Act I understand we're debating multiple bills with respect to the Clean Air Act.
But in terms of the Fire Act, mister Evans bill, that it does nothing. I mean, the existing processes within the EPA provide for precisely the type of relief that he's seeking in this bill. So it it's not the bill's, again, completely unnecessary. It's also not going anywhere. We, of course, know that to be the case.
But in any event, I digress. Before I I yield to the the distinguished ranking member of the appropriations committee and and thank her for her leadership, I might just say, mister speaker, I I heard my colleague from New York, you know, kinda wax very poetically about the importance of the big or not the big beautiful bill, whatever they're calling it now, the, working families bill or something like that they've come up with. I presume there are 218 Republicans in the house of representatives, give or take. I presume, given the importance of this commemorative resolution, that there perhaps might be some colleagues that are gonna join my colleague from New York to come talk on this bill. Is that mister speaker, might I ask you to pose that question to the gentleman from New York?
Does he anticipate any, any colleagues coming to the floor or just him?
Brian Fitzpatrick
I'm receiving that we're not, the the parliamentary inquiry which you described and is, we're not prepared to describe, but he'll be able to, to respond during his time.
Joe Neguse
Okay. Well, I thank you, mister speaker. I I I hope he does. I suspect the answer is no. I suspect that mister Langworthy is is is here alone and that he'll be the only republican, that has been tasked with, arguing in favor of this really important commemorative resolution that we're all so eager to vote on.
In any event, mister speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I'll offer an amendment to the rule to adopt the senate amendment to h r seven one four seven, the bipartisan compromise bill that the senate unanimously passed twice now, twice, to fund the law abiding agencies within DHS. Mister speaker, this is the deal. You know it. I know it. At the end of the day, the compromise legislation that the senate passed twice was deprived of a vote on this floor by Republicans.
Not a single senator objected to this bill twice. The Republican Senate majority leadership authored the motion, but House Republican leadership refuses to take it up, and as a result, is perpetuating the shutdown of DHS by not putting that deal on the floor. Members who want to end the shutdown ought to join us in defeating the previous question to put this bipartisan compromise on the floor today. And, mister speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the, text of my amendment into the record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. Without objection.
Madam speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. We're grateful to her for her leadership, miss Deloro.
Recognized. I thank the ranking member for yielding. Madam speaker, it has been more than twenty days since the United States Senate reached a unanimous agreement to all but end the shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security. And yet, Republican House leadership refuses to bring the measure up for a vote on the House floor. It would pass overwhelmingly here without question.
Without question. The White House has only recently decided to start paying workers throughout TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard, our cybersecurity agencies after refusing to do so for weeks. They claim they have the authority to do this. Now if the administration believes that they have the authority to use this money, then every paycheck a TSA worker was forced to miss was because the White House made an active choice not to pay them. Imagine.
Imagine the turmoil in people's lives. No paycheck at the end of the week or at the end of two weeks. How do you pay your rent? How to buy groceries? We know the stories of people being evicted, sleeping in their cars, donating their plasma for money.
This is reality, and the White House had the authority to pay them so that they didn't have to go through this, and the number of people who left their jobs because they were not getting paid. It really defies imagination that people's lives, their economic security was being held up for purely political reasons. Now I would just add that this money will probably run out at some point. And our job and appropriations job is to make sure that people are these agencies are funded through the end of the year. That can be done because there is no disagreement on both sides of the aisle on funding.
Coast Guard, TSA, FEMA, cyber security, the secret service. The issue is and a lengthy debate on what we do with the terror that ICE is re dealing with on on in our cities and our towns nationwide. And that's gonna be a lengthy debate about the reforms and the overhaul as it should be. In the meantime, everyone should continue to be paid. Democrats and Republicans in the senate, they made an agreement.
You know, the public wants to know why you can't get together. It usually is I I I would generally say we can't get unanimous consent on whether or not the sky is blue in this institution. Can I have
I'd like to yield an additional minute to this right now? The
gentleman yields But we had unanimous consent not once but twice. We also had, and I think I read, that the speaker of the house had agreed that this is what they would do. But that was turned around. That was upended. And we know, and I've said this a moment ago, rank and file would support it as well if we were allowed to receive a vote.
The only people who do not want to reopen this government and this department are House Republican leadership who continue to block the bill. The madness must end. And if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the senate passed bill unanimously so that we can't end this shutdown. Let's get back to work for the American people. And I encourage my Republican colleagues to join us in this effort.
I thank you and I yield that. The gentleman reserves.
Nicholas Langworthy
And I greatly respect the work that the appropriations committee has done this year. Chairman Cole and and ranking member DeLauro did a beautiful job navigating a process that has led us for fiscal year twenty twenty six to get all but one of our appropriations bills passed with bipartisan support. And they had a bipartisan agreement on how to fund the Department of Homeland Security. But it wasn't until the Democrats on the other side of the aisle figured that they had to answer to their political base that they decided to throw the biggest political temper tantrum in the history of the country. And here we sit with a department still shut down, and they still won't agree to fund the entire department.
And in fact, nearly every one of the members, all but a few courageous Democrats have voted against funding the Department of Homeland Security in its entirety time and time again right here in the House of Representatives. It's a matter of public record. The shutdown, you know, let's be honest who's responsible. Republicans have put forward serious good faith efforts to fund the Department of Homeland Security and keep these critical operations running. It's Democrats that chose to walk away time and again over and over.
It's Democrats who chose to play politics with funding for agencies that protect the American people every single day. They did that knowing full well what's at stake, funding for FEMA disaster response, our coast guard operations, and other core homeland security functions. That was all put at risk because Democrats refused to engage. They made the decision to do that. They were willfully aware that certain parts of the department like ICE were already funded through the end of the year.
This wasn't about policy. It was all about political theatrics, and it's all that we've had for the last forty, fifty days. And the consequences are real since Democrats shut down DHS. We saw violent attacks at Old Dominion University, the Temple Israel Synagogue in Michigan and in Austin, Texas, and we saw a massive cyber attack on the Stryker Corporation. This is no time to be playing politics with the safety of our homeland.
And instead of stepping up, Democrats chose to step back, and and now they come to the floor trying to shift the blame, hoping the American people will forget who actually walked away from funding the very agencies responsible for protecting them. The facts are clear. Republicans are working to fund the government and keep Americans safe. Democrats chose to shut it down, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Joe Neguse
Thank you, madam speaker. Lot of political rhetoric. Again, think I the American people know the facts. They know that the senate passed a bill twice on a unanimous basis to fund DHS. It's not complicated.
The United States Senate passed the bill. Not a single senator objected. The United States Senate passed the bill again. Not a single senator objected. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, the most conservative senators in the United States Senate approved of this bill.
They sent it here. It's sitting at the clerk's desk. And if we voted on it today, my guess, 90% of the House of Representatives would vote for it. And the only reason we're not is because the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has decided we're not going to vote on it. That's it.
The rest of it, you could try to confuse the American public and describe to them the the play by play of the last sixty five days. Again, it's not complicated. There's a bill sitting at the clerk's desk to fund DHS that every Republican senator and every Democratic senator and 90% of this body support. And the only reason we're not voting on it is politics, because Republican speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has decided that he won't allow it. That's it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Joe Neguse
Thank you, madam speaker. You know, I I am I am prepared to close, but I I will say that I'm doing this very begrudgingly because I was hoping that we might be able to have some, you know, colloquies with my colleague from New York with his colleagues on HRES eleven fifty six. So I mean, know how important this commemorative resolution is to the Republican conference, and I would be loathe to deprive my colleague from New York with the opportunity to have a fulsome debate it. So is there no there's no republican in the house of representatives who's willing to come down to the floor to extol the virtues of the big beautiful bill or the the working families bill that they've they've renamed? None, madam speaker?
Alright. I'm
Joe Neguse
Well, thank you. Madam speaker, just to clarify, I just wanna clarify something that the speaker said. That is not the name of the bill. Just to be clear, I encourage anybody who's watching, go online, pull up the bill. It's about, I think, 350 pages.
The one phrase that you will not find in the entirety of the bill is working families tax cuts, madam speaker. It's nowhere. I checked. I checked yesterday during the rules committee. I checked again before I came to the floor just to be sure.
So I don't know where you came up with that name or or Madison. I'm not even really sure who's come up with it in the Republican conference. Somebody, a marketing guru in the Republican conference, I think, convinced the speaker. And I I suppose said to him, look, this bill is deeply unpopular. President Trump is deeply unpopular, more unpopular than any president in the modern history of our country.
We gotta do something different. And I've got an idea. We'll just come up with a new name for the bill. New name? Resolution honoring that new name?
That'll convince them. I'm sure that will get the American public on our side. Fascinating. I I'm prepared to close if, if my friend from New York is.
Joe Neguse
I thank I thank you, madam speaker. Week after week, my colleagues on their side of the aisle have opted to take up a a variety of legislation. The one common thread is that it fails to meet the moment. Americans sent us here to work on the issues that they care most about, that have the most impact on their everyday lives. The rising affordability crisis, expanding access to affordable health care, protecting our environment and public resources, not to gut air pollution standards and pass commemorative resolutions patting ourselves on the back, patting themselves on the back.
That's not how congress should be spending its precious time. The bills before us do nothing, nothing to improve the lives of working families in our country. And it's why I would encourage my colleagues to oppose the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bills. And with that, mister speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Nicholas Langworthy
Thank you, mister speaker. I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
Nicholas Langworthy
For years, democrats have told the American people not to believe what they can see with their own eyes. They've defended a system that penalizes states for emissions they don't control, discourages wildfire prevention, and Barry's job creating projects under layers of unnecessary bureaucracy. The legislation under this rule today takes real steps towards fixing those failures, restoring fairness to our air quality standards and supporting proactive wildfire mitigation, cutting red tape that delays jobs and investment, and reaffirming tax relief for working families through HR one. I strongly support the rule before us today. With that, mister speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
Robert Onder
The gentleman yields back and moves the previous question. The question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. Those in favor, aye. Aye. Those opposed, say no.
No. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. Speaker, I request the yeas and nays. The gentleman requests the yeas and nays. Those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.
Mike Flood
A sufficient number having risen, the yeas and nays are ordered. Pursuant to clause eight of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be pro postponed. Pursuant to clause 12 a of rule one, the chair declares the house in recess, subject to the call of the chair.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.