[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 10, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2107-H2115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1210
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2189, LAW-ENFORCEMENT INNOVATE TO
DE-ESCALATE ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 261, UNDERSEA
CABLE PROTECTION ACT OF 2025; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3617,
SECURING AMERICA'S CRITICAL MINERALS SUPPLY ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1042 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1042
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2189) to
modernize Federal firearms laws to account for advancements
in technology and less-than-lethal weapons, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
119-18 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended,
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as
amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate 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; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 261) to amend
the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit requiring an
authorization for the installation, continued presence,
operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber
optic cables in a national marine sanctuary if such
activities have previously been authorized by a Federal or
State agency. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources
now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to
final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources
or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3617) to amend
the Department of Energy Organization Act to secure the
supply of critical energy resources, including critical
minerals and other materials, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill
shall
[[Page H2108]]
be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) 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 (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. Each day during the period from February 10, 2026,
through July 31, 2026, shall not constitute a calendar day
for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act
(50 U.S.C. 1622) with respect to a joint resolution
terminating a national emergency declared by the President on
February 1, 2025, April 2, 2025, July 30, 2025, or August 6,
2025.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado
(Mr. Neguse), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and
reported out a rule providing for consideration of three measures.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3617, the Securing
America's Critical Minerals Supply Act, under a closed rule, with 1
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their
designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 261, the Undersea
Cable Protection Act, under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources, or their designees, and
provides for one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2189, the Law-
Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act, under a closed rule, with 1
hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their
designees, and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee
on Ways and Means or their designees, and provides for one motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the
underlying legislation. The rule before us once again exposes a
fundamental divide in the House. Republicans are focused on protecting
American lives, American infrastructure, and American national
security. Democrats are focused on protecting bureaucracies, activist
pressure campaigns, and the broken systems they created.
For years, Democrats have governed by slogan instead of substance.
They talk about safety, but undermine law enforcement. They claim to
care about national security, but allow infrastructure critical to that
mission of security to decay. They give lipservice to the need to
reshore our supply chains, while time and again supporting policies and
legislation that ensure that America remains dependent on our foreign
adversaries.
Their opposition to the rule today undermines and underlines the
stark contrast between the left's words and their actions, which
threaten to undermine our country.
Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2189, the
Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act. Every single day, law
enforcement officers are asked to make split-second decisions in
dangerous, unpredictable situations. In those moments, officers should
have access to every appropriate tool available to de-escalate
encounters, protect themselves, and save the public's lives.
Yet standing in their way is outdated Federal law. Under current
statute, less-than-lethal devices like tasers are still treated like
firearms. That classification no longer reflects modern technology,
modern training, or modern policing. It creates unnecessary barriers
for law enforcement agencies across this country.
These devices are designed to temporarily incapacitate an individual
without causing serious or permanent injury. They play a critical role
in real-world law enforcement encounters by giving officers a nonlethal
option to defuse potentially violent situations and protect both
officers and the public at large.
Because these de-escalation tools are misclassified under Federal
law, the consequences are real. Law enforcement agencies and
communities face higher costs, procurement delays, and unnecessary
regulatory hurdles, including taxes and rules written over 50 years ago
that were never intended to apply to modern, less-than-lethal
technology.
At a time when departments are investing in better training,
accountability, and modern technology to reduce fatal encounters,
access to less-than-lethal alternatives should be expanding, not
shrinking. Federal law should be keeping pace with innovation, not
trapping law enforcement in the past.
{time} 1220
Mr. Speaker, the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act updates
this outdated framework and acknowledges a simple fact. Law enforcement
officers need access to better tools in order to do their job safely
and effectively.
The bill ensures less-than-lethal devices are treated for what they
are, which are tools in de-escalation, not firearms. It draws clear
lines, focuses on devices designed to incapacitate without causing
serious injury, and explicitly prevents any device that would be
converted into a lethal weapon from falling under the new definition.
Democrats will claim that this bill is dangerous. They always do. The
real danger is forcing our law enforcement officers into a false choice
between using deadly force or no force at all. If we are serious about
reducing violent encounters and saving lives, we should be focused on
giving officers more options to de-escalate situations when seconds
matter.
Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 261,
the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025. This bill is about
infrastructure most Americans will never see but every single one of us
rely on every single day. From sending an email to making a phone call
to moving money across the globe, undersea cables are the backbone of
the modern world.
In fact, undersea cables carry more than 95 percent of global
internet traffic. They support military communications. They move
trillions of dollars in financial transactions and keep the global
economy functioning.
Protecting this infrastructure is not just about speed or
convenience. It is about national security. Route diversity matters.
When too many cables are forced into the same landing areas,
vulnerabilities increase. Adversaries take notice.
Despite their importance, undersea cable projects face duplicative
and unnecessary regulatory hurdles. Even after projects receive all
required Federal and State approvals, agencies can still demand
additional authorizations, slowing installation, maintenance, and
repair work that is critical to keeping these systems secure.
We see this pattern far too often in Washington. Projects are
approved, but delays pile up anyway. Timelines slip. Responsibility
gets passed around. Bureaucracy grows, while real-world risks go
unaddressed.
We saw the same pattern play out in upstate New York. Micron is
making a historic investment in bringing advanced semiconductor
manufacturing back to the United States, creating thousands of good-
paying jobs and strengthening domestic supply chains critical to our
national security.
Yet, even after clearing one of the most stringent State
environmental review processes in the country, the project is subjected
to duplicative Federal reviews that reached the same exact conclusions
again and again. Those delays were not about environmental risks. They
were bureaucratic duplication, years of lost time before construction
could even begin.
That is not environmental protection. It is regulatory paralysis. It
is
[[Page H2109]]
the same kind of post-approval delay and second-guessing that puts
critical projects, including our undersea cable installation,
maintenance, and repair, at risk.
At a time when adversaries are actively probing undersea
infrastructure, Washington should be focused on protection, resilience,
and readiness, not red tape.
That is exactly what the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025 does.
It prevents agencies from piling new permitting requirements onto
projects that have already been reviewed and approved. It allows
installation, maintenance, and repair to move forward without
unnecessary delay, while preserving coordination and oversight.
Nothing in this bill weakens environmental laws. Nothing strips
oversight and accountability. It simply says that once the government
has completed its review, it should not keep finding ways to slow down
critical security infrastructure.
If Democrats were serious about national security, we could pass this
on suspension. They would support protecting the infrastructure that
carries our communications, our commerce, and our defense information.
Instead, they will continue to defend a broken process that leaves
critical assets exposed and America more vulnerable than it should be.
Mr. Speaker, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3617,
the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act. Critical minerals
are essential to modern life. They are used in defense systems, energy
infrastructure, manufacturing, and the advanced technologies that power
our economy and keep this country secure. Without reliable access to
these materials, everything built on top of them becomes vulnerable.
Yet for years, Washington policies have discouraged domestic
production and pushed our supply chains overseas. The result was
predictable. The United States became dangerously dependent on foreign
sources for critical minerals, often controlled by adversarial nations
that do not share our interests or our values.
American jobs were lost and supply chains weakened. Foreign
governments gained leverage over materials our economy and national
defense rely on every single day. That is the damage this Congress is
now working to reverse.
Energy security has been a core national security concern before.
After the oil crises of the 1970s, Americans learned the hard way what
happens when adversaries control the resources our economy depends on.
Today, we face a similar threat not just in energy but across the
next generation of industries like artificial intelligence, advanced
manufacturing, and defense systems that all rely on critical minerals.
After decades of degrowth policies that drove energy production,
mining, and refining all overseas, our adversaries exploited those
vulnerabilities. The result is an economy that leaves American families
exposed to decisions made in places like Communist China.
We have already seen this play out. Communist China has taken steps
to restrict exports of key minerals including antimony, which is
essential to defense manufacturing for systems like radar. That is not
a theoretical risk. It is active leverage being used against the United
States today.
Under President Trump, the United States has begun to change course
by prioritizing domestic production, strengthening supply chain
security, and treating critical minerals as a strategic national
interest.
H.R. 3617, the Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act,
builds on that effort. It forces the Federal Government to take a hard
look at where America is vulnerable, improves coordination across
agencies, and ensures securing critical minerals is treated as a
priority, not as an afterthought.
The bill strengthens the Department of Energy's role in identifying
supply chain risks and supporting responsible domestic production,
refining, and processing, so America is not forced to rely on
adversaries for materials essential to our economy and to our defense.
Let's be clear about what this bill does not do. It does not
eliminate environmental review. It does not lower standards. It simply
says America should be able to responsibly produce what it needs here
at home instead of outsourcing our future to foreign powers.
Instead of trying to score political points, Democrats should support
efforts to close the supply chain vulnerabilities that Communist China
actively exploits to the detriment of the American people.
If Democrats were serious about supply chain security and national
defense, this is exactly the kind of bill that they would support.
Instead, they spent years defending policies that left America exposed.
Republicans are choosing strength, security, and self-reliance.
Democrats choose dependence and delay.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to every word of my colleague from New York's
very long speech regarding the bills that the House is considering
today. I might perhaps offer a different picture that I think the
American people ought to consider.
I think, as you know, Mr. Speaker, last month the U.S. economy shed
over 100,000 jobs--100,000. It was the worst month with respect to job
losses since the Great Recession in 2009.
Prices are going up across the board. Everything is getting more
expensive. Orange juice is more expensive. Ground beef is more
expensive. Countless Americans across our country are struggling.
Last year, we experienced a 46 percent jump in farm-related
bankruptcies. Rural America is struggling under this President's
reckless policies. Americans across the country are struggling
economically because of House Republicans' reckless policies.
For all those who wonder whether politicians in Washington might
offer a solution to what ails our country economically, have no fear.
House Republicans have come up with an answer. This week, they are
focused on what really matters to the American people: Cutting taxes
for tasers and making it easier for multinational tech companies,
monopolies, to build undersea cables through marine sanctuaries.
{time} 1230
Those are the bills that we are considering today on the floor. That
is their answer to the economic crisis that has befallen the people of
our great country.
It is absurd. It is absurd. It begs the question: Why? Why would
House Republicans choose this course, again, given all of the
challenges that I know that their constituents face, as mine do?
Unfortunately, it is a reflection of the core values of just too many
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who invariably,
incessantly, and inherently have a predisposition to favor the
ultrarich and the biggest corporations on planet Earth. Anyone who
doubts it should consider the bills that we are debating today.
I have to tell you that I do a lot of townhalls in my district. I
represent the great State of Colorado. I know the Speaker, being from
Nevada, knows my State quite well. I represent a large district in
western Colorado and northern Colorado. It is bigger than eight States,
with no offense to my colleagues from New Jersey, Maryland, or Rhode
Island. It is a huge district, which means that I am on the road a lot.
I do a lot of townhalls.
A lot of issues come up at these townhalls. There are a lot of
obstacles that Coloradans and Americans are facing that they would like
to see their elected leaders help to solve.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the one topic that has never come up at
a single townhall that I have held in my career: undersea cables. It
just hasn't come up.
Maybe my colleague in New York has a different experience. I don't
know. I don't know if he hosts townhalls. I would encourage him to do
it. Maybe undersea fiber optic cables are a big deal in his district. I
can tell you that they are not in mine.
My constituents aren't really concerned with slashing permitting fees
so that the largest technology companies on planet Earth can build
fiber optic cables through marine animal sanctuaries. That just isn't
something that they are spending a lot of time thinking about.
[[Page H2110]]
Who could blame them given all of the concerns that they have in
light of the economic conditions that they are experiencing by virtue
of this administration's cruel policies that the House Republican
Conference has abetted at every turn.
Mr. Speaker, one could ask, as I suspect you would: What is the
gentleman from Colorado's suggestion? Lucky for you, Mr. Speaker, I
have one, because we know that one of the reasons that prices are going
up across the board in the United States are tariffs. It is this
President's reckless policies with respect to tariffs. We have some
solutions in that regard. They are ways that Congress can finally stop
abdicating its authority and exercise its powers with respect to
tariffs.
I think the Speaker knows that because Speaker Johnson decided to
tuck into the rule that we are considering today a measure that would
prevent the House from considering any changes to the President's
tariff policies for yet another 6 months.
I am going to read you a quote: ``It will be the fourth time this
rule vote putting a gag on tariff debates has been done. I don't think
tariffs are good for the economy, manufacturing jobs, and ag industry.
American consumers pay the tariffs and thus it is a big tax. I support
giving these authorities back to Congress.''
These aren't my words. These are Republican Congressman Don Bacon's
words, your colleague, who agrees that what Speaker Johnson is trying
to do is to, yet again, gag the United States Congress.
To Mr. Bacon, I say: Thank you for your honesty.
To the rest of my colleagues, I say: Where is your backbone? Where is
your spine? Stand up for the Constitution, as your colleague is doing.
Stand up for the House of Representatives. Stand up for your
constituents.
Shameful, Mr. Speaker.
I am hopeful that perhaps that political courage that Mr. Bacon is
showing will be contagious. Maybe a few more of my colleagues will join
him.
In any event, I know that we have a lot of speakers who are eager to
talk on this subject.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to address their
comments to the Chair.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Ezell).
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2189,
the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act of 2025, bipartisan
legislation that modernizes our Federal firearms laws to better align
with 21st century technology and the real-world needs of law
enforcement officers and the communities they protect.
The bill does something straightforward but important. It creates a
new classification for less-than-lethal projectile devices and removes
them from outdated regulatory categories that were never designed with
today's equipment in mind.
For years, departments across the country have faced unnecessary
hurdles acquiring proven less-lethal tools that can make a life-or-
death difference in a very high-stress environment.
These tools, such as specialized projectiles intended to deescalate
confrontations, have helped officers reduce injuries for themselves and
for the public. Yet the lack of clarity in the current law has made
procurement difficult and compliance confusing.
H.R. 2189 fixes that, establishing clear, commonsense definitions and
regulatory pathways so that our law enforcement professionals can get
the equipment that they need without unnecessary delay or confusion.
That is not just good policy. That is good public safety sense.
This legislation represents a balanced approach. It upholds our
commitment to the rule of law, supports law enforcement safety, and
provides additional tools that encourages de-escalation and reduced
violence wherever possible.
As a fellow law enforcement officer, I thank Congressman Fitzgerald
for leading this valiant effort. I am proud to join my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle in advancing this forward.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 2189.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).
Mr. STANTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Neguse for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues are trying to use today's
procedural rule vote to sneak in a provision that would block a vote on
Trump's tariffs for the next 6 months.
I have a bill to end Trump's tariffs on Mexico, the United States'
number one trading partner, that Republicans have been stalling for
months.
They have also blocked our bills to end the tariffs on Canada and the
so-called liberation day tariffs.
These tariffs have been a disaster for American families and
businesses. Domestic manufacturing is in a downturn. Farmers are
suffering, and the tariffs cost the average American household over
$1,000 per household in the last year alone, according to the
nonpartisan Tax Foundation.
Too many of our Republican colleagues would rather surrender their
congressional authority than stand up to Trump. They would rather cross
their fingers or pray that the Supreme Court settles this.
Let's be clear. A vote for this rule is a vote in favor of Trump's
illegal tariffs. It is a vote for higher costs for the American people,
and it is an abdication of our duty as Members of Congress.
I urge my colleagues, Republican and Democratic alike, to vote
``no.''
{time} 1240
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues across the aisle would love to scapegoat
everything on the President's tariff authority. The question of
affordability, which they have all of a sudden gotten into their hands,
is rich given that they presided over the worst inflation spike in 40
years.
Under President Joe Biden, families paid more for everything, for
food, housing, transportation, and energy. It all exploded on their
watch when they ran three Houses of government.
Energy prices surged roughly 20 percent. In many parts of the
country, electricity rates rose 30 percent. Democrats didn't just miss
the problem. They caused it, and then they put their hands over their
face and pretended like everything was okay.
Those weren't abstract numbers. Those were kitchen table realities,
and they remain kitchen table realities for working families, who are
lectured by Democrats to be patient. Meanwhile, this transitory
inflation--their claim--they just spent trillions of dollars more and
inflamed the problem all the more.
The difference today could not be any clearer. Gas prices are coming
down. They are at their lowest level in 4 years. Real wages are rising
again. Regulatory costs are finally being rolled back after years of
Democrats using regulations as a weapon against affordability.
President Trump and congressional Republicans are cleaning up the
mess left behind, undoing the damage of the Biden economic policies,
restoring confidence, and rebuilding an economy that works for people
who actually earn a paycheck.
That brings us to the rule before us today. The three bills under
this rule all address affordability in the real world. They reduce
unnecessary delays that drive up costs. They protect the infrastructure
Americans rely on every single day. They support domestic production,
so families are not left paying more because Washington chose delay,
dependence, and dysfunction.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, whenever I have an opportunity to listen to one of my
colleagues' speeches in this august body, I can always count on them to
do three things: to say a noun, a verb, and ``Joe Biden.'' My colleague
from New York does not disappoint with this myopic obsession that they
have with Joe Biden.
Facts are facts. The price of beef has risen 16.4 percent since last
year. The price of coffee is up 19.8 percent. The price of lettuce is
up 7.3 percent. Frozen fish is up 8.6 percent. In total, families paid
$310 more for groceries during President Trump's first year in office
compared to 2024, so spare us these ruminations about Joe Biden.
[[Page H2111]]
If they want to get serious about doing something about the cost
crisis in our country, making life more affordable for Americans, there
is an easy way to do it: Don't sneak in procedural roadblocks to
considering tariff policies by the House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington
(Ms. DelBene), who has been a principled leader on this issue with
respect to tariffs.
Ms. DelBENE. Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in an all too familiar
situation. Speaker Johnson and House Republicans are trying again to
prevent our ability to have an up-or-down vote on Trump's tariffs, like
they have done multiple times over the last year.
The President's chaotic trade war has been crushing businesses and
raising prices on families across the country. I am hearing from
communities across Washington about the devastating impact of these
tariffs. A small business owner in my district told me he is being
tariffed out of business. I know my colleagues are hearing the same,
especially from farmers who are often the first and hardest hit when
countries retaliate against these tariffs.
Yet, despite all of this damage, Republicans have sheepishly fallen
in line behind the President and gone along with avoiding a vote. They
would rather bend the knee to the President than stand up for their
communities.
Affordability is the number one issue facing families right now.
Tariffs are taxes that raise prices, plain and simple. These illegal
tariffs cost the average American family $1,700 last year. Today is an
opportunity to break this cycle, but Republicans need to be part of the
solution. This is a chance to stand up for our constituents, who
deserve to know that their elected Representatives really work for
them.
If my colleagues think these sweeping tariffs are such a good idea,
then vote for it, but stop hiding. We are not elected to dodge
important issues just because we are afraid of the President. The
Constitution gives Congress, not the President, authority over trade
policy.
I am grateful for my colleagues who have been fighting with me
against these tariffs since the beginning. I hope that more of them
will find the courage to say enough is enough today. Vote ``no'' on the
rule.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and
in support of H.R. 2189, the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate
Act. This bill will put lifesaving, 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 a 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 and hospitals,
meaning security officers would be unable to purchase these devices.
For police departments, law enforcement officers could be unfairly
subjected to higher levels of liability exposure for discharging a
``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 a less lethal projectile device.
It does so by instituting a five-part test, ensuring only those
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 is no longer classified as a
firearm. It was never intended to apply to them in the first place. 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.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Congressman Correa, Congressman
Schweikert, and Congressman Stanton, for their leadership on this issue
over the last two Congresses.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, I am not going to dispute my colleague from
Wisconsin's sentiment here. If people are looking to not pay taxes on
tasers, he has them covered. The Republican Conference has them
covered.
If people are struggling to pay for their groceries or their rent,
they are out of luck as far as the House Republican Conference is
concerned. Taxes on tasers, don't worry. They have a plan for that.
They are working really hard to solve that existential challenge facing
the country as we speak.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to strike section 4, which would stop an attempt
by Republican leadership to block the House from taking up-or-down
votes on President Trump's disastrous tariff policies through the end
of July.
As the country knows, since March of last year, Speaker Johnson and
the Republican majority have blocked up-or-down votes on these
policies. Our view is that these policies have been a disaster for the
American people, and everyone knows it.
We all remember, with great fanfare, President Trump announcing
liberation day. The only liberation that any of our constituents have
felt is the money departing from their wallets as this President
increases prices on everyday consumers.
{time} 1250
It is wrong, and the Congress has a constitutional duty and
responsibility to act. We know that these tariffs have cost the
American people trillions of dollars. We know that according to the
Joint Economic Committee, the average American family now pays an extra
$1,625 in basic expenses thanks to the economic policies of this
administration.
The question is why are Republicans hiding from an up-or-down vote on
these tariff policies?
In the Senate, multiple votes have been held on these policies. Joint
resolutions to terminate the tariffs have been sent to the House, to
the Clerk here on a bipartisan basis from the United States Senate four
different times. But Republicans, four different times, have done the
opposite. Republicans have delayed votes on these tariffs, essentially
surrendering one of Congress' main functions to one man, one man in the
White House.
During the September vote, several Republicans were apparently so
frustrated by the process that they actually held out for about 45
minutes before they, of course, did what we all expect them to do: fold
and strike a deal.
One of them--and I will quote from one of my Republican colleagues.
One of the temporary holdouts said that under the Constitution, the
power to impose tariffs is a congressional power and needs to be
restored to Congress. Apparently, he switched his vote after issuing
that statement because he got a commitment from the Speaker that this
House would only block votes on tariffs until the end of January.
Well, here we are back again with the Republican Conference springing
into action to do Donald Trump's bidding. He says: ``Jump.'' Our
colleagues say: ``How high?'' Well, not all of our colleagues say that.
Maybe one of one or two of them, as I said, may show the courage
tonight to vote their conscience.
Republicans are trying to ram through yet another rule to hide from
taking up-or-down votes this time until the end of July. It is
outrageous, outrageous, and it is why we are offering this amendment.
Before yielding to the distinguished ranking member who has been a
leader in this regard, I want to quote my colleague Tom Massie from
Kentucky, a Republican, who I think said it best. ``Why haven't we
[[Page H2112]]
voted on tariffs in the House of Representatives?'' This is a
Republican who said this. ``Because Speaker Johnson is using Rules
Committee Resolutions, consummated by majority votes of the whole
House, to declare that `a day is not a day' in order to AVOID THE U.S.
LAW that requires Congress to vote.'' These are Republican Members of
Congress, Tom Massie, Don Bacon, all saying what we know to be true,
which is that the House is abdicating its duty.
I would encourage my colleagues, those of whom may find some
semblance of backbone, to defeat the previous question, and we can
finally have an up-or-down vote in this body on whether to terminate
President Trump's disastrous tariffs starting this week with Canada, my
colleague from New York's neighbor to the north.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to include the text of
my amendment in the Record along with any extraneous material
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Meeks), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee,
whose proposal we will be considering, who has fought against these
disastrous tariff policies at every turn.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Neguse for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is Groundhog Day again in Washington, D.C. You know,
this week is an opportunity to drive down electricity costs, create
jobs at home by bolstering our exports of goods made in America. It is
an opportunity to lower the cost of groceries and healthcare for
families around our great country. But this Republican majority never
misses an opportunity to do the opposite of addressing affordability
for the American people.
After all of the majority's procedural shenanigans last year, my
resolutions ending President Trump's harmful tariffs on Canada and
Mexico are due for a vote this week. But the Republicans couldn't let
that stand. They are trying to change the rules again and again and
again and again to do what? They are trying to change the rules again
to avoid voting on ending Trump's tariffs.
Just this week, new research from the nonpartisan Tax Foundation
showed that the President's tariffs cost the average American well over
$1,000. It will cost them even more now. That is what it cost them last
year. It will be even more this year.
President Trump brags about the money generated from tariffs, but it
is money ripped right out of the wallets of working families. Will this
body listen to the affordability concerns of our constituents and
retake our responsibility over Congress' Article I powers to tax and
trade? No, they won't. Will they lower the cost of utilities and
groceries or medical devices around the United States that Americans
need? No, they won't.
What we are witnessing is one of the most astounding displays of
cowardice in the modern history of Congress. It is truly a spectacle.
In all my years, I have never seen a group of Members so deeply afraid
of just doing their job.
The American people sent us here to address their affordability
concerns. I had to say to one member of the administration just last
week: Do not continue to be a flunky of the President. Don't be a
flunky of the President. Don't block for the President if he is not
doing the right thing. Work for the American people. Don't be flunkies
for the President when you know he is wrong. Work for the American
people. Let's vote on this. Let's have the bravery to vote on this.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my friends on the other side of the
aisle that the Supreme Court heard arguments on November 5 on this very
issue of whether the Trump administration has the authority to impose
the tariffs under the debate right here. Our extension of the tolling
days is something Democrats did themselves back in the 116th and the
117th Congress.
Unlike when they did it, ours has a clear end date, sunsetting in a
matter of months, unlike the blanket prohibitions of COVID NEA
resolutions under Democratic rule.
This extension will allow the Supreme Court the time necessary to
provide a ruling on this extremely consequential issue. It is just
amazing to hear the arguments about affordability when they presided
over an era of government that exploded our national debt, exploded
prices, not to the tune of $1,000 but tens of thousands of dollars on
Americans across the board, and they still tried to convince people
that their policies had nothing to do with it.
{time} 1300
That is why this House is in Republican hands, the U.S. Senate is in
Republican hands, and the White House is in Republican hands. That is
because it was part of the mandate given by the American people to
reset the global trade order and to renegotiate unfair trade deals that
have happened over decades. Both Republican and Democratic
administrations alike took advantage of the American worker, chased our
jobs overseas, and ruined our supply chains. All of those things
happened.
The tariffs have been an important tool that the President has been
able to use to create real trade deals, opening up markets for American
products. We have seen it firsthand. We have new trade deals around the
globe. America has come from a position of strength because of this
tool, not a position of weakness. We can't allow that weakness to
prevail.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Frost).
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because it contains H.R.
2189, the Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act. This is a
terrible bill and a billion-dollar giveaway to gun manufacturers
wrapped in a deceiving title.
The corporate lobbyists pushing this bill claim it is an effort to
prevent police violence, but, in reality, it would make everyone less
safe. In fact, the words ``law enforcement'' aren't even found anywhere
in the bill.
Even Gun Owners of America is not being shy about what the bill
really does. They posted the summary online. Just today they posted it
as a bill exempting certain weapons from all firearms regulation under
the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act. There will be no
background checks and no questions asked.
Nowhere in the bill text does it mention law enforcement because law
enforcement already has and uses the power to purchase tasers. What the
bill actually does is create a new loophole that will flood our
communities with more weapons and new ghost guns.
Axon and other companies that make and sell weapons will benefit from
this bill, but none of us will benefit from it. Our communities will be
less safe.
Every time the government creates a new opening, the gun industry
will take advantage of it. I promise you, Mr. Speaker, within weeks
there will be files online to 3D print the parts you need to make this
weapon you got without a background check into a gun that can shoot
bullets, and within months you will be able to purchase those same
parts online legally.
When gun violence remains the leading cause of death in the Nation
for our kids, Congress must not hand unregulated weapons over to the
public. We must not make Axon, a multibillion-dollar company, even
richer. I am someone who has witnessed both police violence and gun
violence, and I want Congress to consider real reform like the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
This bill was rushed to the floor. We tried to make changes, but our
edits were rejected.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same. Folks should know that voting ``yes'' on
this is voting ``yes'' on more guns in our communities.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2189 does not allow felons or violent criminals to
gain access to anything new. It does not override State or local law,
and anyone barred from possessing these devices today remains barred
tomorrow.
[[Page H2113]]
What this bill actually does is correct an outdated Federal
classification that treats tasers like deadly firearms. That outdated
and absurd classification has driven up costs, created delays, and made
it harder for law enforcement agencies to access less-than-lethal tools
designed to specifically de-escalate situations and to save lives.
Democrats are calling that clarity a loophole. In reality, the only
thing that this bill closes is the gap between outdated law and modern
policing. Instead of supporting officers who want safer alternatives to
deadly force, Democrats are trying to scare the public with cherry-
picked statistics and misleading claims.
Let's be honest. If Democrats were truly concerned about public
safety, they would not oppose a bill that encourages de-escalation and
reduces the likelihood of fatal outcomes and encounters.
Despite all this rhetorical nonsense about policing in the United
States, Democrats are standing in the way of this commonsense measure.
They cannot seem to support legislation that empowers law enforcement
in any way, even when it keeps communities safe.
However, this pattern is not stopped with this bill. Across all three
bills before the House today, the choice is the same. Republicans are
offering practical solutions to strengthen public safety, protect
critical infrastructure, and secure our supply chains that our national
security depends on, and Democrats are choosing, again, to delay, to
distort, and to defend broken systems and outcomes.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to respond to my colleague from New York
because, again, I think this rule is largely a smokescreen to just
avoid a discussion on the President's reckless tariff policies.
However, insofar as my colleague is obsessed with cutting taxes on
tasers, I suppose I am compelled to respond to simply say that what was
just stated with respect to violent felons not being able to access
tasers by virtue of this legislation, that is untrue. It is just
untrue.
Clearly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are seeking to
remove these particular weapons from the definition of firearm under
Federal law, and as a result, the various protections and safeguards
that exist under Federal law. They can make the argument that in
certain States there may be protections. That is not true of every
State.
In any event, the larger question that every American who is watching
C-SPAN now ought to ask themselves is: Why is the U.S. House of
Representatives spending so much time on debating cutting taxes for
tasers?
How did that manage to become the top priority of the House
Republicans in Washington, D.C.?
Inquiring minds would like to know.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Jeffries), who is the distinguished Democratic leader of the House of
Representatives.
Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman who is
my friend from the great State of Colorado, Representative Neguse, for
yielding time and for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule, another
reckless effort by the Republican majority to stop this House from
doing something to stop the reckless Trump tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives, part of this Congress, is
a separate and coequal branch of government. We don't work for Donald
Trump. We don't work for J.D. Vance, and we don't work for Republican
billionaire donors. We work for the American people.
The Constitution, Mr. Speaker, gives this House the explicit
authority with respect to tariffs. Yet because apparently my Republican
colleagues have been ordered by the current President not to allow an
up-or-down vote on whether his tariffs are harmful to the American
people, once again, we find ourselves discussing a rule to limit the
ability of this Congress to act on behalf of the American people.
This is consistent with what we have seen from the Republican
majority, Mr. Speaker, from the very beginning of this Congress, which,
unfortunately, continues to act like nothing more than a reckless
rubberstamp for Donald Trump's extreme agenda, an agenda that is not
helping the American people. It is hurting the American people.
Yes, we have a cost-of-living crisis in this country, and I know the
President doesn't want to talk about it. He thinks it is a Democratic
hoax.
No, the affordability crisis in this country is not a hoax. It is
very real. Working-class Americans, middle-class Americans, and
everyday Americans are suffering because of the failed Trump Republican
economy.
Donald Trump, his words, promised to lower the high cost of living on
day one. More than 1 year later in the United States of America, Mr.
Speaker, costs haven't gone down. Costs have gone up. Housing costs are
out of control. Healthcare costs are out of control. Childcare costs
are out of control. Electricity bills are out of control, and the price
of groceries and everyday goods are completely out of control.
One of the reasons why the cost of living continues to crush the
American people is because of the Trump tariffs which have imposed
thousands of dollars in additional costs on everyday Americans, making
life even more expensive than it had been when this Presidency began.
Why is it so complicated for Donald Trump to keep his promise to the
American people to lower costs and to focus on making life more
affordable?
Instead, he has gone the opposite direction, imposing tariffs on our
allies in Canada and Mexico, in Europe and across the world, without
any clear strategy, having an adverse effect on the pocketbook of
everyday Americans.
{time} 1310
This Congress is charged constitutionally with the ability to say yes
or no as it relates to tariffs that have been imposed. In fact, the
President should have sought our authorization.
Instead, he is using a fake emergency authority that hopefully the
Supreme Court will make clear he does not have, and we certainly await
that decision. However, we don't need to wait for that decision. We
don't work for the Supreme Court either.
The House is the Article I branch of government, the institution that
the Framers decided should be the part of government that is closest to
the American people, that reflects the hopes, the dreams, the
aspirations, the fears, the concerns, the anxieties, the passions, and
the life experiences of the American people, who are suffering right
now in this failed Trump Republican economy.
That is not just my simple observation. FOX News, the President's
favorite news source, in a recent public opinion survey concluded that
more than 70 percent of the American people believe, correctly, the
economy is a disaster under this President.
One of the reasons why it is a disaster is because of the reckless
Trump tariffs. The Republican majority, Mr. Speaker, won't even allow
an up-or-down vote. That is what this rule is about--silencing debate
and the will of the people's Representatives to do something meaningful
to make life more affordable for the American people.
I asked some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who know
that this so-called mandate that Republicans apparently believe they
had in the aftermath of the November 2024 elections--parenthetically,
by the way, what mandate do they really think they have in this House
when they have the narrowest majority that any party has had since 1930
during the Great Depression?
In fact, we also know they wouldn't even be in the majority right now
had they not stolen three seats from the people of North Carolina with
mid-decade gerrymandering in 2024. Therefore, we don't want to hear
anything about mandate.
The only mandate we have collectively is to make life more affordable
for everyday Americans, to drive down the high cost of living, to stop
burying your head in the sand, to stop being a reckless rubberstamp for
Donald Trump's extreme agenda, to stand up to him every now and then as
part of a separate and coequal branch of government.
Stop the cult-like behavior, Mr. Speaker. It is hurting your very
constituents.
[[Page H2114]]
We have an opportunity, if we vote down this rule, to actually take
up for consideration the resolution put forward by Congressman Meeks
that would wipe out the unnecessary tariff imposed on our ally to the
north in Canada. It is a step that should have been taken a long time
ago, but Republicans have been blocking this vote.
I just hope that a handful of Republicans will join every single
House Democrat in opposing this rule so we can get to a debate on the
actual substantive effort to stop the reckless, dangerous, and harmful
Trump tariffs as part of our commitment as Democrats to do what is
necessary to lower the high cost of living and to make sure that every
single American in this country, when they work hard, when they play by
the rules, they should be able to live an affordable life, a
comfortable life, and live the good life.
It is not too much to ask for in the wealthiest country, America, in
the history of the world. Work hard. Play by the rules. Live the good
life. Good-paying job, good housing, good healthcare, good education
for the children, and a good retirement--which means backing off
extreme attacks on Social Security and Medicare--that is a Democratic
commitment.
In order to help bring about that good life, Mr. Speaker, one of the
most meaningful things that we can do as a body is to stop the harmful
Trump tariffs. Vote ``no'' against this rule.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
Republican rule.
Republicans continue to give President Trump a free pass to damage
our economy and punish our American families with his illegal tariffs.
The Constitution could not be clearer: Congress, not the White House,
has the authority to impose tariffs. It does not belong to President
Trump, no matter how many crazy rants he tweets out in the middle of
the night.
Yet Republicans continue to fold like cheap lawn chairs by refusing
to allow a vote on Trump's tariffs. Instead of standing up for their
constituents, they are acting as a cut-and-paste for Trump.
Why? It is because they are more afraid of his retribution than they
are concerned about the budgets of their families back home, families
who are paying for Trump's endless trade wars.
According to the Joint Economic Committee, Trump's tariffs cost
American households more than $1,600 last year--that is $1,600--and
that will continue to rise if Congress doesn't take the keys away from
Trump. Maybe that is pocket change for Trump and his billionaire
buddies. Higher prices on groceries, cars, housing, utilities, and
other basic necessities don't impact them.
However, working families, small businesses, and farmers are
certainly feeling the pain of these trade wars. Trump's tariffs are
increasing prices on everything for them, and Republicans are letting
it happen on their watch.
My Republican colleagues have a choice. They can stop cowering to
Trump and vote to strike down this rule because Americans want an end
to Trump's trade wars.
Let's reclaim our constitutional authority and put an end to his
abuse of tariffs once and for all.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, it has become impossible to ignore a defining feature of
today's Democratic Party, and that is Trump derangement syndrome, which
is a real disease. No matter what legislation is before this House, no
matter how unrelated it is to President Trump, Democrats find a way to
twist the debate back to him--his personality, what they hate about
him--not the text of the bill, not any of the real-world problems
families are facing, just Trump over and over and over. Every time they
do that, American people pay the price.
When inflation exploded in 2022, after trillions of dollars in
Democratic spending overheated the economy, families were drowning in
higher grocery bills, higher gas prices, and higher rents. All of it
exploded, went out of control. It is a matter of fact. It is not a
matter up for debate. It happened in this country.
Democrats were not focused on fixing those things. Instead, they are
focused on their latest Trump obsession. When the border collapsed and
millions of illegal immigrants poured into communities across our
country, Democrats once again ignored the consequences of their own
policies. Instead of securing the border or addressing affordability,
they leaned harder into the same tired talking points and hysteria
about President Trump.
Voters saw right through that in the last election, and Democrats
lost the popular vote. They lost the electoral college. They lost every
swing State on the map. Yet, even after that decisive rejection, Trump
derangement syndrome remains completely untreated.
Instead of course correcting, Democrats continue to defend wasteful
programs, failed policies, bloated bureaucracy, while reflexively
opposing every effort that President Trump and House Republicans are
making to clean up the mess that they created.
Here we are again today listening to the same theatrics. The American
people are no longer entertained by those theatrics. They are focused
on results: lowering costs, securing the border, strengthening energy
independence, restoring accountability in Washington, reshoring
American jobs, and bringing manufacturing here back to the United
States of America that their failed policies over decades have chased
away.
While Democrats remain stuck in the year 9--we are going on year 10--
of Trump derangement syndrome, Republicans are focused on governing and
delivering results for working families. Mr. Speaker, I would like to
once again remind my colleagues of what is actually in the rule before
us today.
The rule provides for consideration of three commonsense bills: the
Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act, which we have talked
about; the Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025; and H.R. 3617, the
Securing America's Critical Minerals Supply Act, which will strengthen
our domestic critical mineral supply chain so we can be stronger here
at home and across the world.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1320
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
``U.S. Manufacturing Is in Retreat and Trump's Tariffs Aren't
Helping,'' February 2, 2026, headline, The Wall Street Journal.
Apparently, The Wall Street Journal has Trump derangement syndrome,
too, according to my colleague from New York. American consumers must
also. Everyone apparently has it except for House Republicans.
By the way, my Republican colleagues talk enough about Joe Biden, one
would be forgiven for thinking they miss him. As I said, noun, verb,
``Joe Biden,'' effectively the answer and retort on my colleague's part
to every question.
The reality is that my Republican colleagues, as has been displayed
and demonstrated time and time again, work tragically for one person,
and that person is Donald Trump. Lest anyone doubt that, let's see if a
few of them will have the audacity, the courage, to vote against the
rule today.
I will say, it bears repeating. I have quoted a lot of Don Bacon on
the floor today. If he is watching, I hope he will forgive me in
advance. I will read again this tweet, this post on X, from John
Bresnahan of Punchbowl News, who quoted Mr. Bacon: ``It will be the
fourth time this rule vote putting a gag on tariff debates has been
done. I don't think tariffs are good for the economy, manufacturing
jobs, and the ag industry. American consumers pay the tariffs and thus
it is a big tax. I support giving these authorities back to Congress.''
That is from Republican U.S. Congressman Don Bacon, so spare us the
stale and tired attacks about Trump derangement syndrome. These are
your colleagues saying it, not me.
My colleagues ought to do the right thing: vote against this rule so
that we can have an up-or-down vote on the disastrous Trump tariffs
that are inflicting pain on the people who I represent in the great
State of Colorado and across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H2115]]
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, for years, Democrats told the American people not to
believe what they could see with their own eyes. They said that crime
was under control, our infrastructure was secure, our supply chains
were resilient, and our energy systems were just fine.
The legislation under the rule today takes real steps toward fixing
broken systems, supporting our law enforcement officers, protecting
critical infrastructure, and rebuilding supply chains right here at
home.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the rule before us today.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Neguse is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 1042 Offered by Mr. Neguse of Colorado
Strike section 4.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DesJarlais). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________