who understands infectious disease process. do you think that the biggest problem -- i think the biggest problem, i'll ask you if you think so, the biggest problem with alt misinformation, with all the -- all the ph-fgs, with all the -- fact we had black liberals and white conservatives not following science because both sides were politicized so bad nobody could figure out what the truth was because it was politicized we couldn't get to the truth. would you agree it was one of the biggest problems we had? dr. walensky: i would say that -- first i want to say many scientists and state health officers have given every one of our state health officers my direct cell phone at some point in time over the last 2 1/2 years so they had access to me so they could see what was happening on the ground. that was a frequent event that people would have access to me. i do think that when politics have become involved in what we

are trying to frame, what should be framed as a medical health measure, we get misinformation, we get vitriol flashed across the pages of public health workers, we get -- >> we are to leave this program here to keep our over 40-year commitment to live coverage of congress. you can continue watching if you go to our website c-span.org. we take you live now to the floor of the u.s. house here on c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me? the heavens tell of your glory, o god. each day announces your benevolence and every night provides wisdom gleaned from the day. holy god, your creation speaks of your goodness, your kindness, and your mercy. would that our voices be so pure. would that our speech reflect your concern for the world. would that our words, the very thing creation does not have, prove as illust are a tiff of your steadfast love and patience. every word that comes from your mouth, o god, is love and

powerful. it provides as a shield for us, protecting us from our enemies and our enself-destruction. lord, may we choose to take refuge in your word. then, may the words of our mouths and all that we consider within our thoughts and the meditations of our hearts be acceptable to you this day here where we are called to serve you. in your most merciful name we pray, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house the approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. pappas. mr. pappas: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side

of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as someone who comes from a long line of dairy farmers, it's my honor to rise and recognize national dairy month. i'm proud to come from the state with the second most dairy farms and to represent more than a thousand dairy farms in my district. in pennsylvania, the dairy industry is a major driver of economic growth, supporting more than 47,000 jobs, and bringing more than $11 billion in revenue. but pennsylvania dairy producers are struggling. the total number of dairy farms and dairy cows in pennsylvania are decreasing. one way to revitalize the dairy industry across the industry is by passing my bill, the whole milk for healthy kids act. this bill will allow whole milk

to once be served again in school cafeterias. not only is this bill a win for children and parents across the country who have been begging for more options in school cafeterias, it's a win for dairy farmers. i believe there's no better way to celebrate national dairy month than by passing the whole milk for healthy kids act. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i've always thought it was odd that doctors can prescribe medications for heart disease and diabetes but couldn't prescribe fresh fruits and vegetables. for a long time now, community-based organizations have been incredibly successful in using produce prescriptions to reduce hunger and diet-related disease. recently the indian health service released a new $2.5

million grant to make produce prescriptions available for native american and alaskan native people. about one in four native people experience food insecurity compared to one in nine americans overall. last september the biden-harris■ administration hosted the second conference on hunger, nutrition and health. with the strategy that came out of that conference is the special focus on the challenges and opportunities in indian country and that's why i'm so excited by programs like the one just announced by the indian health servicend hunger among historically underserved communities. we should and end hunger now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. carter: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to extend and revise my remarks. i h the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. carter: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life and legacy of sister lordsy sheehan.

sister sheehan, a savannah, georgia, native, and sister of mercy for over 70 years, helped expand catholic education throughout the southeast. she quickly applied her knowledge and skills, not just to the classroom but also to curriculum development. she served as executive director of the national director of boards of catholic education and was the first woman to serve as the u.s. conference of catholic bishops. she received a medal from pope benedict xv. we mourn the loss of sister sheehan and thank her and god for the thousands of lives she helped educate. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new hampshire seek recognition? mr. pappas: i ask unanimous

consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. pappas: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to mark pride month and to tell members of the lgbtq community that they are seen, that they are supported, and that they deserve the same rights, responsibilities, and protections as every other american. that shouldn't be a controversial statement but we know that many lgbtq americans face discrimination and are targets of an intensifying effort to deny their right to simply live as their authenticselves. pride is a time to celebrate our differences and the diversity that helps make our country great. it's a time to mark the progress we've made and time to rededicate ourselves to achieve freedom and equality for all. as co-chair of the lgbtq equality caucus, i'm continuing to work to pass legislation that will protect benefits for veterans, that will ban the use of so-called panic defenses in federal court, and will protect americans from discrimination by passing the equality act. no one chooses to be lgbt. but america can choose to continue to have an open mind and an open heart and a commitment to a future that

includes everyone, regardless of who we are hor whom we love. i wish everyone a happy pride and yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, jiedz 1. >> mr. speaker, joe biden has failed the american people. he's failed to uphold his oath of office and preserve and defend the constitution. from illicit business dealings and millions of dollars in bribes and payments to himself and to his extended family. joe and his border czar, kamala harris, have allowed an invasion at our southern border. jeopardizing the lives of hundreds of thousands and killing hundreds of thousands with fentanyl. they have directed their border patrol to release illegals into our country unfettered.

in fact, a judge even had to intervene and stop biden's release program. mr. ogles: joe biden has violated article 2 of the constitution to take care and respect the laws of this country. so mr. speaker, that is why i'm introducing articles of impeachment against joe biden and kamala harris. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president or the vice president. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to highlight the importance of the south carolina's decision in allen vs. milligan in ruling that the alabama legislature used redistricting to dilute the voices of black voters.

the supreme court has preserved section 2 of the voting rights act and helicopter protect the fundamental promise of our democracy, that every vote matters. ms. ross: this is a major victory for voting rights, not just in alabama, but in states across the south. my home state of north carolina is no stranger to racial and partisan gerrymandering. as republican legislatures employ gerrymandering as a tool to serve their partisan interests, this ruling sends a powerful warning to all politicians who seek to roll back minority voting rights. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. biden and his administration

have abused power by ignoring congress for a failing liberal agenda. biden finalizes regulations over $200 billion cost in his first year and proposed more than $1 trillion in new regulations in 2022 on consumers increasing cost. such abuse of power is why house republicans are introducing the reins act, introduced by mrs. cammack of florida. it requires congressional approval for rules with an annual burden of $100 million. examples include bans on oil and gas lease sales, increasing gasoline costs, mandated fabricated climate disclosures, banning of gas stoves, affecting 40% of american homes. sadly, an abuse by biden today is the political prosecution of donald trump. in conclusion, god bless our troops who successfully protected america for 20 years as the global war of terrorism

moves from the safe haven of afghanistan to america with open biden borders. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, thank you. last week we saw this house floor, the people's house taken hostage by republican members from republican members. we were sent home early. bills were canceled. committees were canceled because they couldn't pass the rule. but why are we back here, why are things funking functioning now -- are things functioning now? mr. moskowitz: guns, guns, we need to figure out in this country how we can solve this

issue. the idea of more guns, more gun accessories, that is the issue that brought the republican conference together? that was the issue that broke the logjam of letting the people's house function again? guns, guns potentially in the hands of those who are mentally ill, gun accessories available to those who are a danger to others or themselves? they are so lost on this issue. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the retirement of command master chief bo kim bell. for over 23 years of service in the united states navy. xhan master chief is a graduate of charleston, west virginia, with a bachelor's degree in science and organizational leadership. he attended seal training, and

graduated in april of 2002. master chief nankibble supporting operational enduring freedom and troop leading officer supporting centcom crisis element. he completed his operations master chief tour at seal team three and deployed as a senior enlisted advisor and attached to seal team three deployed to centcom and indo pacom areas of responsibility. the country action officer, senior advisor. and group one as close quarters combat and assault senior listed advisor and basic training command as the first phase master chief. he's married to megan and they have three wonderful children, asher, duke, and daughter caden.

fair winds and following seas. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. neguse: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. neguse: >> mr. speaker, i recognize all in this country who have been impacted by gun violence. mr. crow: my constituents know the deep-rooted pain of gun violence. it never heals from kcolumbine o aurora to stem school, ours is a community that's faced immense tragedy. our children are afraid to go to school every day. students in my district ask me what are you doing to protect us? .unfortunately many republicansy

refusing to pass basic commonsense, life-saving gun violence prevention legislation. june is gun violence awareness month, encompassing six anniversaries of tragic mass shootings in our nation. including the horrific hate-filled shooting at pulse night club that took 49 lives seven years ago this week. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. crow: i honor the lives of those we have failed to protect. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i ask for unanimous consent to speak for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the west henderson high school baseball team for winning the north carolina high school athletic association's 3-a state

championship. this is west henderson's first state championship baseball victory since 1992. it stands as a testament to the team's unwavering commitment, exceptional skill and remarkable self-discipline and teamwork. led by their esteemed coach, jackie corn, the west henderson high school baseball team's dedication and passion for the great american pastime has inspired everyone in western north carolina. thank you to coach corn, along with assistant coaches ryan anderson, anthony lindsey, jimmy gash and chip koons, for leading west henderson high to this exciting victory. in recognizing this achievement, we also honor the parents amend families who have helped bring these talented athletes, to bring this prideful moment to western north carolina. as a proud graduate of west henderson high school myself, i rise to say, go falcons. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the black voice news. who has reported on seeking justice in the inland empire in reporting for decades. for the last 50 years, the black voice news has addressed issues such as disparities in health care, wealth and education. this dedicated team of talented journalists have chronicled some of the most important stories impacting black lives in my community and given a voice to our residents. i.g. i.g. they've lift --inging -- mr. iglesias: -- mr. aguilar: the inland empire residents deserve to have access to local news and that black voice news provides that. i'm so proud of everything this publication has accomplished over the last 50 years and i'm

excited to see what's to come in the next 50. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. on may 31 at midnight, 29 million americans became instant felons thanks to biden's weaponization of the a.t.f. the a.t.f.'s overreaching new rule created by unelected bureaucrats reclassifies pistols as short barrel rifles if they have a stabilizing brace attachment. many disabled veterans and other americans rely on these braces to be able to correctly use their firearms. under this new rule, which several courts have already declared unconstitutional, lawful gun owners could face up to 10 years in jail and thousands of dollars in fines if they fail to register pistols with stabilizing braces. this is a blatant assault on our second amendment rights that makes 29 million americans, including many veterans, subject to up to 10 years in prison and

numerous fines. mr. moore: i'm glad to see the courts getting involved, to temporary halt this rule. but we need more permanent solutions. i urge my colleagues to vote for h.j.resolution 44, led by my friend, to block this unconstitutional rule and make sure lawful gun owners are not considered felons. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate wilber harry cline's 100th birthday and honor his service as a world war ii veteran. 80 years ago wilber answered the call to defend our freedoms and this great nation. he served our great nation in the 133rd regiment, in the united states army, during world war ii. he received the purple heart, good conduct medal, and a

campaign medal with three bronze stars for shedding his blood to defend this great nation. he's a true patriot who marched through liberated rome and faced horrendous battle conditions throughout his journey. he's such a devout man that he's recited the lord's prayer as the german 8 ar till -- 88 artillery shells wounded him in 1944. mr. mills: while he does not think of himself as a hero, he is to his son michael, his family, and to this entire nation. it is a privilege to recognize his service to our country and celebrate his 100th birthday. mr. cline, i wish you many more joyful years to come with your family. thank you and god bless. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the democratic caucus, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 502.

resolved that the following named member be -- >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the state of florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 2-a-1 of rule 9, i seek recognition to give notice of my intent to raise a question of privileges of the house. the form of the resolution is as follows. h.res. 49, censoring and condemning adam schiff, representative of california's 30th congressional district. whereas the allegation that president donald trump colluded with russia to steal the 2016 presidential election has been revealed as false by numerous in depth investigations, including the recent report by special counsel john durham, which documents how the conspiracy theory was invented, funded and spread by president trump's political rivals.

ms. luna: whereas representative adam schiff, who served as a ranking minority member and then chairman of the permanent select committee on intelligence of the house of representatives, hpsci, occupied positions of extreme trust, affording him access to sensitive information unavailable to most members of congress. whereas for years representative schiff abused his trust by citing evidence of collusion that, as is clear from reports by special counsel muller, department of july inspector general horwitz and special counsel durham, does not exist. whereas by repeatedly telling these falsehoods, representative schiff purposely deceited -- deceived his committee, congress and the american people. whereas representative schiff lent credibility to the dossier, a collection of debunked collusion accusations funded by president trump's political rivals, by reading false allegations into the congressional record at hpsci

hearing on march 20, 2017. whereas once again abusing his privileged access to classified information, representative schiff composed a false memo justifying the foreign intelligence surveillance act, fisa warrant application, on trump association carter page, which inspector general horwitz later found riddled with 17 major mistakes and omissions, provoking fisa court presiding judge to state unequivocally that the federal bureau of investigation misled the fisc. where's by publicly smearing carter page as a russian collaborator and justifying investigations of him, representative schiff contributed to the gross violations of a united states citizen's civil rights liberties, thereby committing the very abuses the hspc -- hpsci is supposed to thwart. whereas representative schiff

behaved dishonorably on many occasions, including by falsely denying that his staff coordinated with the whistleblower to launch the first impeachment of president trump. whereas part of his impeachment efforts during an hpsci hearing representative schiff cited a false concocted rendition of a phone call between president trump and ukrainian president zelenskyy, whereas representative schiff exploited his position on hpsci to encourage and excuse abusive intelligence investigations of americans for political purples. whereas representative schiff used his position and access to sensitive information to instigate a fraudulently based investigation which then he used to amass political gain and fundraising dlarls. whereas the american taxpayers paid $32 million to fund the investigation into collusion that was launched as a result of representative schiff's lies, misrepresentations, and abuses of sensitive information.

and whereas it is determined by an investigation conducted by the committee on ethics that representative schiff lied, made representations and abused sensitive information, he should be fined the amount of $16 million. now therefore be it resolved that the house of representatives sensors and condemns adam shift, representative of california's 30th congressional district, for conduct that misleads the american people in a way that is not befitting of an elected member of the house of representatives. representative adam schiff will forthwith present himself to the well of the house of representatives for the pronouncement of censure. he'll then be censured with a public reading of this resolution by the speaker and the committee on ethics shall conduct an investigation into representative adam schiff's lies, misrepresentations and abuses of sensitive information. the speaker pro tempore: under rule 9, a resolution offered from the floor by a member other than the majority leader or the minority leader as a question of the privileges of the house has

immediate precedence only at a time designated by the chair, within two legislative days after the lyings is -- resolution is properly noticed. pending that, the form of the resolution noted by the gentlewoman from florida will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege, that determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the lyings -- of the resolution. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 495 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 24. house resolution 495. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the joint resolution, h.j. res. 44, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of

title 5, united states code, of the rule submitted by the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives relating to “factoring criteria for firearms with attached 'stabilizing braces'”. all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. the joint resolution shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution 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 the judiciary or their respective designees, and two, one motion to recommit. section 2. at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 277, to amend chapter 8 of title 5, united states code, to provide that major rules of the

executive branch shall have no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is enacted into law. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 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 118-6 shall be considered as adopted in the house and in the committee of the whole. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. no further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part a of the report of the

committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such further amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the house with such further amendments as may have been adopted. 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 one motion to recommit. section 3. section 3. upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h.r. 288, to amend title 5, united states code, to clarify the nature of judicial review of agency

interpretations of statutory and regulatory provisions. 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 118-7 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, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees, two, the further amendment printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the member designated in the report, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not

be subject to a demand for a division of the question, and three, one motion to recommit. section 4. at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 1615, to prohibit the use of federal funds to ban gas stoves. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce or their respective designees. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part c of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be

offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. section 5. at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of the bill, h.r. 1640, to prohibit the secretary of energy from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule titled "energy conservation

program: energy conservation standards for consumer conventional cooking products", and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce or their respective designees. after general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. no amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in part d of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. all points of order against such amendments are waived. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for

amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. section 6. the ordering of the yeas and nays on the question of reconsideration of the vote on adoption of house resolution 463 is vacated to the end that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. massie: for the purpose of debate only -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one hour. mr. massie: for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern, pending which i yield myself such time as i may con consume. during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to

revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. massie: house resolution 495 provides for a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 277, the regulations from the executive in need of scrutiny act of 2023. and provides one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. house resolution 495 further provides for a structured rule for consideration of h.r. 288, the separation of powers restoration act of 2023. this -- and also provides one hour of debate equally divided by the chair and ranking member of the committee on judiciary. house resolution 495 further provides for a structured rule for the consideration of h.r. 1615, the gas stove protection and freedom act. and provides one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member

of the committee on energy and commerce. this resolution further provides for a structured rule for the consideration of h.r. 1640 and provides one hour of debate controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on energy and commerce. furthermore, house resolution 495 provides for a closed rule for consideration of house joint resolution 44 and provides one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on judiciary. these are five bills that may seem unrelated but they're very related and they have to do with the power of congress. and the fact that our power has atrophied considerably since the beginning of this country. in fact, we're almost a vestigle organ at this point. we ceded so much power of the executive branch and that's how

these are related. three of the bills seek to repeal laws or regulations that the administrative branch his unconstitutionally, i would say, promulgating. and two of the bills get to the heart of the problem we have. and one of them, specifically, is the reins act. this would rein in our power to legislate. i don't think our founders would recognize our form of government at this point. they never intended for the administrators to be the lawmakers. yet, here we are. so the regulation in need of scrutiny act would take every major regulation that's suggested, and i say suggested, by the administration back to congress where there would have to be a positive vote of the house and the senate in order for that to go to the president. and then with his signature become law. as all laws should do. and then the other bill in this package that seeks to address the sort of chronic problem that we have here in congress is the

separation of powers rest lakes act. -- restoration act. it's basically a repeal of a horrible supreme court precedent called chevron deference that says that basically anything, any way the administration wants to construe one of our laws, they can get away with it, and the supreme court will give deference to the interpretation. no matter how far field from the original interpretation of the law there was given from congress. finally, the three bills that deal with the three -- the three bills today that deal with individual regulations, two of them deal with gas stoves. this administration has a war on gas stoves. depending on which person from the administration you listen to, the rule that's being promulgated by the consumer safety product group and also by the department of energy, there are two rules here, they would ban between 95% to 50% of the

gas stoves on the market. for arbitrary reasons. and it's not clear there would be any consumer benefit from banning these. in fact, consumers would suffer from this ban. these are the types of rules that we need the reins act for. they would have significant impact on our economy, and that's why they should be here in front of congress and that's why we arary' -- why we're seeking to counterman them here today. and finally, and i think this is the most important rule that we're countermanding in legislation this week and that's the pistol brace rule from the a.t.f. you know, we're not talking about an interpretation of law where the e.p.a. says, you know, we think we should allow this much sulfur dioxide instead of that much sulfur dioxide and create a civil infraction which corporations can be sued or

punished. we're talking about criminal penalties. the a.t.f. has twisted existing statute, a statute -- a law that was passed by congress in 1934. now they've magically reinterpreted it to create tens of millions of felons beginning on june 1. so we have a bad situation in this country right now where millions of people have been turned into felons, law-abiding individuals who are following the rules that were set forth by the a.t.f., and that's why urgent action is required on the pistol brace rule repeal here today and that's house joint resolution 44. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from kentucky for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: you are recognized. mr. mcgovern: so mr. speaker, it's great to see you again. how are you? it's been a while. you look terrific. we haven't had votes in, what, five legislative days.

all because some republican members decided to throw a temper tantrum last week on the house floor wanting to rehash legislation that was passed the week before. so what we saw was the essentially a fight between the right wing and extreme right wing. i mean, what the hell is going on here? with each passing week, it becomes more and more obvious that the republican party is completely out of touch with what everyday people care about in this country. we are bringing a new rule to the floor that incorporates the bills that we were supposed to do last week and adds an additional bill to make it easier to kill people. i'm told that the republicans now have the votes to pass this rule, but the question is, what was the deal? or better yet, what was the secret deal to convince the republicans who were problematic last week to go along to get along this week?

reading the press, we see that members of the freedom caucus are saying they have this deal on power sharing. i'm not quite sure what that means. and power sharing with the speaker and the extreme right wing, is that the deal? and then we hear from the speaker that there's no deal on anything. i don't know what the truth is. maybe my friend can enlighten us at some point what the truth is. but my republican friends like to say this place should be run like a business. well, if they really believe that, then this place should be out of business because this is not the way congress should be run. this is not the way you run a democracy. this is ridiculous. you know, democrats have worked tirelessly to try to lower costs for people, bring jobs back from china, fight pollution and keep our communities safe. republicans, what do they stand for? forgive me for saying i am not

entirely sure because everything i've seen so far since they took over is dysfunction and disarray. republicans began this congress by wasting a week fighting with each other about who would be speaker. now we're five months in and they have enacted five laws. one a month. boy, what an achievement. even democrats -- even democrats and president trump were able to enact 21 laws at this point. and now the far right fringe of the republican party, the same fringe that demanded speaker mccarthy give them all of his power, has succeeded in even dictating to him what bills he can and can't bring to the house floor. this is important, and i want the american people to understand who is in charge here right now. it's not the speaker of the house. it's not kevin mccarthy. it's the far right of the far right. i mean, we have sitting members of the republican conference right now openly advocating for

civil war. these are the people calling the shots. are you kidding me? in what world should the 11 most extreme people in the republican party get to dictate the entire agenda of a legislative body that represents 332 million people? what are we doing here, mr. speaker? we have smoke from wildfires clogging up our air. scientists are telling us we need to do more on climate change and, yet, we are passing messaging bills about gas stoves. by the way, that's not even me calling them messaging bills. it's the republicans saying that. and i quote -- this is a republican -- we do not need to leave d.c. early because messaging bills are not coming to the house floor. that was congresswoman boebert last week. or how about this one, and i quote, when we pass things around here that are messaging bills that don't do anything, is it really a loss that we aren't

passing anything, end quote. i mean, their own members are saying that the bills that they are passing do nothing. . they're essentially playing a messaging game. is this really the best we can do? with all the challenges that we face in this country, and around the world. meanwhile, our constituents are begging us, they're pleading with us to do something about gun violence in this country. and what do republicans do? how do they respond? by bringing to the floor a bill that makes it easier for the next mass shooter to kill more people. it is sick. nine people outside a bar in dayton in 2019. 10 people including a police officer at a grocery store in boulder in 2021. five people in an lgbtq night club in colorado springs in 2022. six people, including children, at a school in nashville just a few months ago. what do they all have in common? they were all killed by mass

shooters who used stabilizing braces. and by the way, the a.t.f. rule that the republicans are trying to overturn, contrary to what they say, doesn't even make stabilizing braces illegal. it doesn't ban them. all it does is it says that you need to register braces because they are used in a lot of mass shootings. but for republicans, any amount of commonsense gun safety regulation is too much. why? why? because the n.r.a. says so. our kids are being slaughtered, for god's sake. does anyone care? do my republican colleagues care at all that america's parents stay up wondering whether our kids will be the next one shot at a school or at a mall or at a movie theater? or at their own graduation? people come up to me all the time and they ask me, why can't democrats and republicans just work together? i tell them, i wish we could. there was a time when we did.

i say to them, go online and google the bills that republicans are bringing to the floor. and ask yourself, why republicans oppose background checks on a gun accessory that mass shooters use to kill people? ask yourself if it's right that this bill was introduced by a republican member of congress, and you got to love this, who owns a gun store and makes millions of dollars by selling guns and these types of gun accessories that mass shooters use to kill people. ask yourself if it makes sense that the only reason this bill is even on the floor is because speaker mccarthy isn't even in charge of the house schedule anymore. the far, far, far right is. the craziest thing is this rule was inspired by guidance published under the trump administration. now let me repeat that. even trump administration -- even the trump administration thought it was necessary to further regulate stabilizing braces. and i can't believe i'm about to say this, but i agree.

if you want to know why we can't have real action when it comes to gun safety, follow the money. follow the money. in the last decade, the n.r.a. has spent more than $100 million to help elect republicans who will support their extreme agenda. follow the money. it's no surprise that the far right is demanding this bill. but it's a shame. how many more mass shootings need to happen? how me kids need to die before my republican colleagues pull their heads out of the sand and realize that the n.r.a.'s blood money is not worth the damage that is being done to our country? i wish i were wrong, mr. speaker. but sadly the coward isner and the more -- cowardice and the moral bankruptcy on the other side of the aisle seems to know no bounds. between the concept of power sharing in the house, which really just means that the speaker is going to have to keep a tiny minority of extremist members happy for the house to be able to function, and the

fact that their party's frontrunner for the 2024 presidential election is being indicted with very serious charges for the second time this afternoon, i'm sorry to say that the republican party is a trainwreck and it doesn't bode well for what's to come. and with that, mr. speaker, i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. >> i find it ironic that the gentleman on the other side of the aisle is demanding to know what the power sharing structure is here in the house. when in fact he'll spend the rest of his time arguing that we should give our power to the white house. that t the administrative branch should be making law in fact, major regular -- making law. in fact, make regulations, so i would say to the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, that if he's wondering about the power sharing arrangement, then he should seek to put some power here in the house. mr. massie: restore the power that the founders gave us in article 1 of the constitution. and with respect to the solution to the tragic school shootings,

some states have take it upon themselves to allow qualified teachers and staff to carry firearms. imagine that. they're protected. the children are protected by firearms. the same way we're protected here. why do we sit here and say, oh, we got to do something and when we sit behind protection and the children aren't? i would encourage the other side of the aisle to co-sponsor my bill to change the default setting here in this country. and the default setting was set by the gun-free school zone act. which makes it illegal to even be near a school and have a firearm, which makes it harder for states to set policies that would save our children. and all it does is make felons of law-abiding gun owners. so i would encourage them to look at a real solution. because you can ban a pistol brace, you're not going to stop a single mass public shooting. most of these mass public shootings occur with a pistol,

not with a pistol with a brace on it or not with a short barreled rifle as they would say, or not with a rifle, an assault rifle, they might call it. so they can start banning these pieces of plastic like the biden administration is doing, and then they can move on to banning magazines or they can do as the ranking member of judiciary admitted to me last night, he'd like to ban all the ar-15's. or they could ban handguns. and then they'll get down to shotguns. the reality is you can't stop these tragedies with a ban. you have to change the way we protect our children. this pistol brace rule that's been promulgated by the administrative branch will cause -- already has caused, they just haven't been arrested, will cause tens of millions of americans to be felons. that happened on june 1. time is up. you're done. you're now a felon if you own one of these braces on your

firearm. and whether you own one or not, most americans understand what's happening here. our system of law make has been turned on its head. even more fundamental than that, people were told it was legal by the a.t.f., the technical division of the a.t.f. reviewed the prototypes of these pistol braces in 2012, when obama was the president. and what did obama's a.t.f. say? to the inventor of the pistol brace? you're asking if the addition of this sample, a buffer tube forearm brace, would convert a firearm in a manner that would cause it to be classified as a rifle, and thus a firearm regulated by the national firearms act. based on our evaluation, our technical department finds that the submitted forearm brace, whether attached to a firearm, does not convert that weapon to be fired from the shoulder and

would not alter the classification of a pistol or other firearm. such a firearm would not be subject to n.f.a. controls. this is a letter on a.t.f. letterhead. in fact, the department of justice letterhead. dated november 26, 2012. that millions of americans relied on, that many entrepreneurs relied on, and now what happens? the rug's getting pulled out from under them. not by the legislative branch. by the way, we could have repealed this here. the democrats controlleoth chambers. they could have passed a legislative ban on these braces. they didn't do it. why didn't they do it? maybe it's because they're accountable. they're accountable to the people. unlike these bureaucrats. nobody's going to lose an election at the a.t.f. for promulgating this rule. but the people here are scared. the people in this chamber are scared to do their jobs and the

people in the senate are scared to do their jobs, so they'd much prefer the administration do our jobs. and what have they done? they've said now, the penalty, get this, what is the penalty for owning this piece of plastic on a firearm that's connected to a pistol? i asked the ranking member of judiciary last night in the rules committee. he did not know. it turns out it's a quarter of a million dollars and 10 years in prison. is that the appropriate sentence for somebody who followed the law for 10 years, followed a.t.f. guidance, that was given during the obama administration, and now doesn't even know they're violating the law? is 10 years and a quarter of a million dollars appropriate? i don't think so. but they relied on this letter. now, to another part of the pistol brace rule. the ranking member of judiciary and the a.t.f. director have

both testified incorrectly that you can comply with this pistol brace rule from the a.t.f. by merely separating the firearm from the brace. that is wrong. that's not what the a.t.f. rule says. why do they say this in testimony? why did the ranking member of judiciary say this? why did the a.t.f. director say this? because they wanted to sound reasonable. that might seem like a reasonable solution. but it's not the solution that the a.t.f. has put into law. again, this isn't a fine. this isn't like saying, well, the e.p.a. decided that we have too much sulfurdy oxide in the -- sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere so you can be fined if you don't comply in your corporation. this is a criminal infraction that will put millions of americans in jeopardy of going to jail for, what, a piece of

plastic? does it make the firearm more dangerous? no. does it make the firearm more concealable? no. does it make the firearm more deadly? no. and then i hear from the other side of the aisle, oh, well we're not banning them. oh, we wouldn't ban them. really? you're telling people in the united states, you have to register them. well, -- as short barreled rifles. guess what, that's illegal in 13 states. 36% of americans live in those 13 states. where you can't even comply, you cannot legally comply with the a.t.f. directive to register that pistol with that brace on it as a short-barreled rifle. compliance is impossible if you want to keep that accessory. so, it is a ban. it's a de facto ban. especially on people in those 13 states. but here's what it's really

about. they can't ban guns, they would love to, but they can't ban them, they can't do it legislatively. the president came into office and looked at all of the regulations and how could he ban some guns? well, he found this one here. and how can he get more guns registered? by the way, it's illegal for the administrative branch to create a registry of firearms that are in common circulation here in the united states. that's illegal. they're not allowed to do it. and the ad-- in the administrative branch. but what have they done with this pistol brace rule over there that we seek to countermanned? they're going to create -- countermand? they're going to create a registry of millions of americans who own pistols. that happen to have this brace. so i would argue this wasn't just a way to ban guns with certain accessories, it was a way to do something else that's not legal, not authorized by congress, and that is to require

millions of americans to register. so, to close out this pistol brace rule, i want to thank mr. clyde for introducing this resolution, it's absolutely necessary, it's very timely. i wish we had got it done before june 1. because now we've got millions of felons in the united states just waiting to be arrested, don't even know they're not in compliance, and this will do -- the a.t.f. rule will do nothing to increase safety. and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: yeah, let me, mr. speaker, let me just say a couple of things. first of all, no one's talking about banning anything here. what we're saying is that an accessory that has been used in a number of mass shootings be registered. that's it. and by the way, the gentleman said the administration should not be making laws. the administration is not making laws. they're administrating and

enforcing the laws that we have passed and they do that through regulation and rulemaking. so i don't, you know, i'm not sure what the gentleman's talking about. but let me also say that he keeps on saying that this bill will turn gun owners into automatic felons. that by owning or buying one of these stabilizing braces, american gun owners will become felons. that's just not true. and by the way, i should tell the gentleman, someone has to be convicted of a crime in a court to be a felon. let me give him an example, one he might be able to relate to. despite being charged with 37 counts for mishandling classified documents, former president trump is not a felon. he only becomes a felon if he is found guilty of the crimes that he was charged with and is sentenced to a year or more in prison. which may very likely happen. i ask to insert into the record an article from the "the washington post" entitled, here are the 37 charges against trump and what they mean.

mr. speaker, before i yield to our next speaker, i just have to say we heard a lot of words from the gentleman and other republicans who speak on these issues. you know what we don't hear, any empathy. for the families who have lost loved ones to gun violence. i began my opening remarks by citing examples of how this accessory was used in mass shootings. children, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers lost their lives, were murdered. police were murdered. not even any empathy. no acknowledgement this is a terrible tragedy. all we hear about, don't take away my toys. don't interfere with my hobby. can't register any of these things. i think people are so sick and tired of where our priorities

are. people are sick and tired of having the national rifle association and all their money dictate what our policy should be on guns. don't care about all the people that have died, been murdered in this country. by wait other countries have similar challenges and problems that we do, they don't have the level of gun violence. they don't have massacres on a regular basis. this is what we get. enough. mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the the gentlewoman from georgia, mrs. mcbath. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman georgia is recognized for two minutes. mrs. mcbath: thank you so much, ranking member mcgovern. i rise in opposition to the underlying resolution and the rule. i speak today not just as a member of congress but as a mother. a mother whose son was taken from her by gun violence. the very thing we are talking about again today. a mother who has fought every day since then to make sure no other mother, no father family,

no other -- family, no other -- other family, no other community feels that pain or loss. arm braces have become the attachment of choice for mass shooters in this country. the attachment of choice for the king super shooter in boulder. to took the lives of 10 people, including a law enforcement officer. attachment of choice for the shooter at club q at an lgbtq nightclub who murdered five individuals there. an attachment of choice for the nashville shooter who slaughtered three innocent babies in an elementary school. we cannot continue to allow weapons of war in our communities. in our meeting centers. in our schools. what i cannot understand what are our republican colleagues afraid of? you swore an oath to protect and to serve your constituents.

what are you afraid of? my democratic colleagues, we are doing our job. we bring forth policy after policy after policy, federal background checks for all gun sales. that law-abiding gun owners still can own guns. assault weapons ban. keeping those guns, those weapons of mass destruction, weapons of war out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. closing the charleston loophole. these are commonsense solutions that people, the american people, are crying out for. and as a mother who has lost her child, i spend all my time talking to survivors day in and day -- thank you. i spend all my time day in and day out with survivors and families. what are you afraid of? we have got to do the right thing and preserve human life. that's why we were sent here.

so i implore you and i'm sure i will do again and again and again to do what's right and to respond to that oath to protect and serve the people that are waiting and crying out for us to keep them safe. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to direct their comments to the chair. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: as a father and a grandfather my heart breaks when i see the victims of these deranged skillers at schools and elsewhere. we need serious solutions. i think it's an insult to the victims and families to tell them the banning of a piece of plastic will save a life. it won't. or that telling them putting up a sign that says gun free zone will safe a life. it won't. it will cost lives. one of my former staffers, she was married for less than a year, her and her husband had a

business, and she had a stalker who followed them to each of their events. and she got a concealed carry license in tennessee. she carried her gun to protect herself from the stalker. this was nicki who worked for me. one night they sat up their business in a bar. the sign said no guns inside because they served alcohol. and nicki left her firearm to protect herself in the car. but her stalker did not leave his. he came into the bar and he shot her husband viciously in front of her. she has to live with that. it's why she wants serious solutions. she knows that gun-free zones are unserious. she knows that banning pieces of plastic are not serious. she knows that children deserve the protection that we have h

here. we all know if you are willing to look at the data in every school that has allowed qualified teachers and staff to carry a firearm there has never been a school shooting. it's a fact. and we need to work on serious solutions not unserious solutions like banning a piece of plastic. on to the stove ban. which is also unserious, but it's going to cost consumers, it's going to make the products less safe, not more safe. it's going to make them less available. it's really -- it's not about the safety or efficiency or consumer benefit. it's about banning fossil fuels. that's why this administration has declared a war on gas stoves. two of the bills in this package would repeal those rules from this administration. natural gas when it's used in appliances is 3.4 times more affordable than electricity.

why is that? think about where that electricity comes from. a natural gas plant can burn electricity. create at 50% efficiency, and put it on wires hundreds of miles long to go to a household and those wires may be 70% efficient, 80%, then the household what do you do with the energy that came from natural gas, you turn it back into heat when you have an electric stove. which is how the administration would want to you live. guess what? that's less than half as efficient. it costs 3.4 times more to do it that way than to create electricity with natural gas and use the electricity at your house than if you just brought the natural gas to the household. consumers who use natural gas in their house save over 1,000 a -- $1,000 a year. this is a war on the middle class and poor. the war on gas stoves. since its a war on affordable heating and cooking. when the electricity goes out in

natural gist dis as terse, whose stove works? the one who has gas stoves. who can boil watttory sp -- watr to drink when it's unsafe? those with gas stoves. this administration should quit gas lighting consumers by telling them they are acting in their best interest. the federal agency committee on indoor air quality has never identified gas stoves as contributing to asthma or respiratory illness. the consumer product safety commission and environmental protection agency have never identified gas stoves as a significant contributor to adverse air quality or health hazard. why are they doing this? it's a war on gas stoves. and these two bills would seek to reverse that. it's just common sense. in fact, the other side of the aisle said this is -- these are messaging bills. guess what? some gems democrats like the -- some democrats like the message because they voted for these bills in the energy and commerce

committee. must abgreat message a message the american people want to hear. must be a message that they like to hear because they know if we had the senate and white house this kind of ridiculousness would not go on. that's why it's important to pass these two bills to protect our gas stoves. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, we didn't call the messaging bills. members of the republican conference called them messaging bills i would remind the gentleman. the gentleman says we need serious solutions to gun violence in this country. i think i heard the gentleman correctly, he's suggesting that it's ok for people to carry guns into bars when they are drunk. i don't think that's very serious. the idea that we can shoot our way into gun safety is insane. we already have more guns than people in this country. we are the only country in the world that has massacres that occur on a regular basis.

and the gentleman is saying people should be able to carry guns into bars when they are drunk and we ought to give teachers more guns and everybody ought to have more guns, everybody will be safe. this is insane. doesn't make any sense. at some point people are going to have to have the courage to stand up to the gun lobby and say no to the n.r.a.'s money and actually do what is in the best interests of the american people. what will protect the people of this country. to hear this nonsense is -- this place is crazier than usual. mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yielded two minutes and is recognized. mr. doggett: the g.o.p. which becomes sadly the guns over people party. its answer to the desperate pleas of families from all across america who want to stop the slaughter of school children

and ot innocent, their answer, o absolutely nothing. today during this national gun violence awareness month, what do they do? they go a step further. this is the only opportunity this year that speaker karyk has considered gun legislation. what do they do with gun violence. they enable more of it. more pistol braces in the hands of killers will cause us to brace for more death. republicans want to stop a a.t.f. rule that will require background checks in american narrow instances when a brace turns a handgun into a rifle. background checks are exactly what we need for all gun purchases so that those who go through the gun shop loophole and don't a check when they buy

it at a gun show or on the internet have to have the same standard as if they bought it in a gun shop. they will not even permit us to respond to the desperate pleas to the people of uvalde to ban weapons of war from the hands of teenagers who couldn't on their own go out and buy a beer. there is an orgy of violence going on and they are obstructing those of us who want to respond to the pleas from doing anything about it. from banning weapons of war, from requiring background checks to ensure we know what kind of person is getting a gun. if they have a problem they ought to be denied that access. the gun industry is marketing these so-called stabilizing braces to convert heavy pistols into sharp barreled rifles more concealable. may i have another 30 seconds? mr. mcgovern: i yield an

additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yielded 30 seconds. mr. doggett: there have been, this year, 291 mass shootings. we can count the numbers, but we can't count the pain of an empty chair where there was once a vibrant parent or a wonderful little child who is murdered in a mass shooting. this congress could do something about it if we can end -- could end the obstruction. we need to more towards reducing gun violence not enabling it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky virginia tech. mr. massie: -- the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: since we are proposing children would be saved by banning plastic. has any one on the other side of the aisle that congressmen are safer that piece of plastic is baned? i don't think so. has anyone proposed that gun free zone signs would keep us safe? i don't think so. what i see surrounding me here, right outside the doors, are people with firearms protecting us.

our children deserve the same respect and same serious solutions. i now yield four minutes to my good friend and league in the rules committee to speak in favor of the rule as he did in the committee, mr. chip roy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. roy: i appreciate the gentleman from kentucky. here we are engaging in the theater of the absurd yet again from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle just blatantly denying the power grab being carried out by the executive branch yet again. they don't seem to care so long as it suits their ends in terms of policy. everybody who follows everybody who follows this understands the court is certain to strike this down. we've already seen it happen in the fifth circuit. we're pretty clear about the extent to which this is an abuse of the administrative procedures act, an extent to which this is an unconstitutional violation of

our second amendment rights. and the court no doubt, like the fifth circuit, will follow suit. and that's just the simple truth. just like we expect the court to most likely rule that the president's power grab to extend a bailout for student loans will also be struck down. that is almost certainly true. but what is also true is that it is incumbent upon the united states congress, the house of representatives in particular, to stand up in defense of the constitution, in defense not just as might seem most apparent here, a defense of the second amendment, which this most certainly is, but in fact a defense of separation of powers. that in fact it is not the executive branch that makes law. when the speaker of the house actually says that the president doesn't have power to do something, and then refuses, as

the previous speaker, speaker pelosi, did to do anything about what the president is doing to exercise that authority unconstitutionally, as was the case with student loans, then it begs the question, do any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle give a wit about separation of powers or about the fact that it is a clear abuse of the power of the executive branch? the answer is no. that's the clear truth. they don't give a wit about that, nor do they care about it here because they like the outcome of the policy. the banning of a piece of plastic. that's the truth. but it's not really about the pistol braces, is it? because really that was in fact something created by marine and army veteran, inventing the pistol stabilizing brace, to help his friend, a disabled combat veteran, at the shooting range. at the time, the a.t.f., president obama's a.t.f., vitzed mr. boss he could -- advised mrg

brace did not convert it into a rifle. here we are a decade later and the biden a.t.f. wants to reverse that by executive fiat. not through the congressional powers, not by legislation, as was possible last summer when my colleagues had the house, the senate and the white house. no, no. they prefer to go ahead and use the unaccountable, unelected bureaucrat at the a.t.f. to make policy. well, we're here to say that that is a bad idea. it's a bad idea for the republic, it is a bad idea for freedom, it is a bad idea with respect to our fundamental rights. the reality here is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know full well what they want to do and it is not just ban an accessory. they want to ban firearms. they want to ban firearms from top to bottom. and this is a step to do it. because i've always been taught,

if your opponents say something, you should believe them. and that is the reality. i hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle will stand up for the c.r r.a. and send it ovr to the senate where it most assuredly might end up being a messaging amendment because the president of the united states will almost assuredly veto it because he doesn't care about separation of powers either. i yield back. mr. massie: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: i mean, this is -- this is strange what we hear on the house floor today. my friends keep on talking about veterans and people with disabilities. but i don't see any major veterans organization or disability organization that has endorsed this bill. the gentleman talks about, you know, the fact that we have security here. yeah, the capitol police who protect us all have had background checks and have all

had training. it's interesting that we have a rule, my friends are in charge, where you can't bring weapons on the house floor. i feel good about that, after i listen to some of my colleagues here today. but i also remind the gentleman that there are police officers at uvalde -- there were police officers at uvalde and we hear from police officers and organizations and all across the country all the time how they don't want to have to get into situations where they're battling with somebody who has an ar-15. people are dying in this country on a regular basis, massacres are happening on a regular basis, and we're on the floor to basically make it easier for people to have access to an accessory that can make a gun more deadly and more accurate, that can kill more people. i mean, that doesn't make any sense. and all i can think of is the

fact that some of my friends are afraid to take on the gun loby. they're afraid to lose -- lobby. they're afraid to lose their money. $100 million in n.r.a. money that went into campaigns in the last 10 years. $100 million. i mean, we have to get our priorities straight here in this congress. we have to put people ahead of guns. mr. speaker, i'm going to urge that we defeat the previous question and if we do, i will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution which states that it's the house's duty to protect and preserve social security and medicare for our future generations and reject any cuts to these essential programs. i ask unanimous consent to he insert the text -- to insert the text of my and he into the record along with -- of my amendment into the record along with any extraneous material prior to the question. to discuss our proposal, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. casar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is

recognized for two minutes. mr. casar: thank you, mr. speaker. i was here alongside all of you during the state of the union when my republican colleagues stood up and started jeering and booing and yelling, complaining, saying that indeed they said they weren't interested in cutting social security or medicare. but in the weeks since it's become clear to me that that was all talk and no votes. or, as we say in texas, all hat and no caddying-- cattle. in fact, this week the head of appropriations says she wants to see even deeper cuts to critical federal programs. that means bigger classroom sizes for our students and our struggling teachers. longer wait times for our veterans seeking health care. all to finance bigger tax cuts for billionaires and multinational corporations. social security and medicare are not safe until we step up and vote to make sure they are safe and that's why i urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can

vote for h.r. 178, which would put our money where our mouth is. so i urge my republican colleagues to prove me wrong. because we're planning on voting on -- what we're planning on voting on this week are things like a ludicrous gas stove bill of rights. are you kidding me? what we're talking about voting on this week is deregulating gun accessories that have been used in mass shootings across the country. really? it is disrespectful, it is dangerous and it is a distortion of our oath and our job that we've committed to doing here today. so instead of battling -- bowing to the gun lobby or passing these ludicrous messaging bills, let's work on solving real problems or at a minimum let's stop these attacks on social security and medicare. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the gentleman from kentucky is recognized -- reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: may i inquire how much time each side has remaining? and the other side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky has

eight minutes. massachusetts, correction. mr. massie: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas,ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. this really is about saving lives. eight children a day die from gun violence. in addition, 40,000 americans die from gun violence throughout the year. i want to thank congressman thompson of california for making clear what we're saying here today. a veteran can buy a brace any day of the year.

we love and respect and admire our veterans. but at the same time we respect our first responders, police officers, and firefighters, and others who are on the front line. or former combat officers who say that we don't need automatic weapons in the hands of civilians, there's no hunting purpose, there's no purpose. you haven't lived until you see a shootout in your district between a criminal with a ghost gun against police officers. that is what we're trying to prevent. i don't want to see that in houston, texas, ever again. you can buy the brace without a background check. but when it becomes a dangerous weapon, when that brace changes the gun's legal status and makes it in essence the same that

caused a mass shooting at a boulder, colorado, supermarket, the stabilizing brace made -- in a shorter barrel made a pistol under federal gun regulations. and so saving lives is why i'm standing here on the floor. protecting police officers is why i'm on the floor. protecting firefighters and then the highest calling that i'm on the floor is protecting children and stopping uvalde and sandy hook and parkland and the list goes on, santa fe. but a brace can be bought without a background check and the rule that's being overturned simply has the a.t.f. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: simply saying the a.t.f. is doing the right thing. vote for the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: i thank the other side of the aisle for pointing out that all the a.t.f. rule

does is change the legal status. that you can still get the brace and you can still get the pistol. the last thing that is on a criminally deranged person's mind is what is the legal status of my firearm? is this the pistol? is this a rifle? is it a short-barrel rifle? how much time will i get when i go on this suicide mission for doing this because of the legal status? but what changing legal status does is it creates millions of felons out of legal firearms owners who presumed they were operating legaly. i now yield 30 -- legally. i now yield 30 seconds to my good friend from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. roy roadway i appreciate -- mr. roy: i appreciate the speaker and my friend from kentucky. the gentleman from massachusetts was questioning why he hadn't heard from any veteran groups in support of this. well, i'd like to introduce into the record wisconsin veterans sue a.t.f. over new rule for stabilizing braces. there are others but, without objection, i'd like to insert that into the record. the fact of the matter is there are many veterans groups who are -- that's one.

we'll get you some more. who are supportive of this bill and supportive of this effort to protect their second amendment rights. that's the fact. because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they want registration because they want to take the guns from the american people because they know that liberty rests with the people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i won't hold my breath waiting for the other names. it's astounding to me that my friends on the other side of the aisle don't want any gun laws and basically the lack of empathy for the murders and the deaths in this country that happen on a regular basis, i mean, at some point we have to say enough is enough. you have to put people ahead of the gun lobby. and my friends are incapable of doing that. i yield to the gentlewoman from new mexico, a distinguished member of the rules committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new mexico is recognized for three minutes. ms. leger fernandez: thank you, ranking member, and mr. speaker.

last month there were two mass shootings in my district. one in farmington and another in red river. on friday, i met with police officers, victims and neighbors who were terrified and wounded, an 18-year-old use an assault rifle and -- used an assault rifle and other guns to kill three beautiful souls and injury six, including two police officers. i sat with the victims and listened to their stories of horror and pain. there were 144 bullets fired before the shooter even left his front yard. one neighbor held my showlders as he shared from a place of unbearable pain what it sounds like when a powerful weapon discharges and you see your neighbor bleeding to death on the street. we know that the trauma of gun violence extends beyond those killed or injured, that's why my constituents and americans are pleading with congress to do what we can to prevent gun

violence. but what happens? what do we come back to? nevada addressing gun violence -- instead of addressing gun violence, republicans stand with the gun lobby to make it easier to evade gun safety laws. when it became obvious that gun manufacturers were selling powerful pistols and then selling shoulder braces to turn them into rifles, the trump administration began work on a regulation to treat these constructed rifles as a powering -- the powerful weapons they are. despite distribute biden administration finish -- the biden administration finished the job. gun manufacturers and sellers are using a loophole to avoid public safety protections. this is how gun salesmen are describing the loophole, and i quote. it might look and function like a rifle, but thanks to the fact that ar-15 pistols don't come built with a stock, they're legally classified as pistols. giving them a full pardon from the inconvenient restrictions,

and end quote. listen, if it looks like a rifle, shoots like if it looks like a rifle, shoots like a rifle, and kills like a rifle. we should treat it like a rifle. that's common sense. sometimes common sense isn't that common in the house these days. i urge my colleagues to stand with the victims, to stand with the people and put people over the pockets of the gun lobby. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. massie: 6,000 veterans signed a petition in opposing the a.t.f. rule. so i hope that's enough to convince the other side. but i want to switch to two other bills that are in this rules package. because this is groundhog day. we'll be here again. the administration does something which has the effect of law, and then we are feckless to change it. there have been over 90,000 rules promulgated since the congressional review was put into place. only 20 rules have never been

counter manned because it's a -- counter mannedded -- counter manned. how did it become law? just because the administrative branch will it it into existence. our constitution says all legislative powers here-in granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states. which shall consist of a senate and a house of representatives. does it say and also an a.t.f. or also an e.p.a.? no it does not. it says house and senate. does it say some legislative powers? no. it says all legislative powers are vested in congress. so the reins act would do quite a bit to restore our power. not enough because chevron still exists. the other bill in this package is the separation of powers restoration act which a legislative repeal of the tragic

chevron deference that has plagued this country for so many years. where the supreme court gives full latitude, broad authority to the administrative branch to twist and contort the laws that we make in creating new laws. i urge people to vote for this rule because it includes these two packages which put our republic back into a structure that our founding fathers envision. where the legislators make the laws and the administration enforces the laws. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. mcgovern: may i ask -- inquire of the gentleman how many more speakers he has? mr. massie: we have no more speakers. mr. mcgovern: i'll close then. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, we have real problems in this country. i mean we -- the norch hemisphere was on fire --

northern hemisphere was on fire. you couldn't walk outside in washington, d.c., without a mask or new york city and a number of major cities and communities across the northeast. our planet has a fever. we have a real issue here with climate change. we don't talk about those things. there are a zillion issues we need to deal with. instead we come to the floor, this is what the republicans have said, with messaging bills. those are their words. not mine. messaging bills to promote their culture war against gas stoves. and a messaging bills to make the n.r.a. even happier? gnat talks -- the gentleman talks about veterans who want this. there are 60 million veterans in our country is this a priority of veterans? these major organizations would support this bill, they are not. bottom line is we are here talking about stuff that won't help anybody. this gun bill just makes it easier for people to kill people. why are we doing this?

this makes absolutely no sense. last week my republican friends fought with each other and nothing got done. this week we are bringing bills to the floor that republican members are calling nothing more than messaging bills. congress was created to help solve problems. to help people. my republican friends think that that's a foreign idea. this is about helping nobody. this is a joke. that we are here today basically so that the n.r.a. can be happy and justify another $100 million into their campaigns. they are bringing this horrific bill to the floor. people are dying every single day in this country. we hardly hear a word about it from the other side of the aisle. during this debate, very little was even acknowledged in terms of the people that are dying in this country. we can do so much better. look, i used to have a history teacher who used to say the world will not get better on its

own. didn't know what he was talking about when i took the course. i do now. nothing good happens unless good people come together and make change. there has to be some reasonable people on the republican side who understand that gun violence is out of control. we have more guns in this country than people. we can't shoot our way out of this problem. and yet that's what my republican friends are suggesting. enough is enough. we need to get back to doing the people's business. mr. speaker, i would urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question. vote no on the rule. vote no on all this garbage messaging legislation that will follow. we are here to solve problems. to make people's lives better. let's do something that actually makes the american people proud of this congress. this is embarrassing. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky virginia tech. mr. massie: i ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter to speaker mccarthy and ranking member hakeem jeffries from -- signed by 11 veterans

and military organizations in support of house joint resolution 44. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. massie: the reins act, most important part of these five bills i would argue, is here and we are debating it today because my constituent, lloyd rogers, who grew up in an orphanage in kentucky where he met his future wife in that same orphanage, he sent this idea for this bill to his congressman who preceded me. rogers served in the army during the korean war. then he came home and served as county judge executive. he was shocked when he was trying to serve the people in his community at how many of the rules and regulation that is tied his hands were never passed by congress. he wrote this bill and sent it to his congressman. by the way he and his wife were married for 65 years. lloyd turned 90 saturday. he's watching this debate. this is how our republic is

supposed to work. laws aren't supposed to come from un-elected bureaucrats with no accountability. they are supposed to be ideas that people in our communities have that would make their lives better. and then we are accountable to them. so when they talk to us we have to listen. they could throw us out every two years. maybe they should throw more of us out every two years. but lloyd came to his congressman and said, please, put this bill on the floor. it went to leg council. counsel. the congressman introduced this bill. it's been very popular. one of the most popular bills among the american people because they know the structure of our government intended by our founding fathers was for us to write the laws and for the administrative branch to execute the laws. not write them themselves. i urge adoption of this rule which contains five bills that i urge the passage of. and i yield back the balance of my time. i move the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. mcgovern: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by a five-minute votes on the adoption of the resolution, if ordered, and the motion to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3099. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

representatives.]

y

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 216. the nays are 209. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 218. the nays are 209. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from texas, mr. mccaul, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3099, as amended, on

which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 3099, a bill to establish the department of state a position of special envoy for the abraham accords and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 413. the nays are 13. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from texas, mr. hunt, seek recognition? mr. hunt: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 495, i call up the bill h.j.res. 44, providing for congressional disapproval under chatter 8 of title 5 united states code of the rule submitted by the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms explosives relating to factoring criteria for firearms with attached stabilizing braces and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: union calendar number 49, house joint resolution 44, joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 united states code of the rules submit bide the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives relating to factoring criteria for firearms with attached stabilizing braces. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 495, the joint resolution is considered as read. the joint resolution shall be

debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees. the gentleman from texas, mr. hunt, and the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. hunt. mr. hunt: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on h.j.res. 44. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. hunt: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. hunt: thank you, mr. speaker. h.j.res. 44 provides for congressional disapproval for the rules submitted by the biden a.t.f. relating to factoring criteria for firearms in which attached stabilizing braces. on january 31, 2023, the a.t.f. issued a final rule that

effectively banned pistol stabilizing braces nationwide. the a.t.f.'s rule redefined a firearm with an attached stabilizing brace as a short barrel rifle subject to regulation under the gun control act of 1968, and the national firearms act of 1934. let's be clear about what's happening here today. with one stroke of a pen un-elected bureaucrats in biden's a.t.f. changed regulatory definitions that will turn millions of law-abiding citizens into felons overnight. that's a fact. if the owners of the roughly 40 million stabilizing braces in circulation today do not obtain a special registration surrender or destroy their brace or turn their brace into the a.t.f. by may 31, 2023, then they could now face criminal penalties and up to 10 years in federal prisons with fines of up to

$250,000. this isn't happening because congress passed a law or because a judge issued a ruling. this is an example of the executive branch making law. this is the federal agency usurping the authority congress has under the constitution. congressional democrats couldn't pass a bill that outlawed pistol stabilizing braces so the bush administration has utilized executive fiat to achieve the desired outcome. to make matters worse, the rule directly contradicts a prior 2012 determination made by the obama administration a.t.f. president obama's a.t.f. said that if firearm be equipped with a stabilizing brace would not be subject to the national firearms act controls. the a.t.f. says one thing for a decade and then does another which will then turn millions of law-abiding citizens into felons literally overnight.

now, american citizens who own these pistol stabilizing braces and rely on the statements made by the a.t.f. are in violation of federal law and are subject to serious criminal penalties. the second amendment is imbued in the bill of rights for a reason. it preserves the first amendment and all other unalienable rights afforded to the american people. we don't need to reimagine a second amendment. we need to curtail it. and we most certainly won't be repealing it for the 28th amendment. this a.t.f. rule is an affront against the rights of the american citizen and an assault on the second amendment and must be defeated. this resolution will nullify the a.t.f. rule and further protect one of our most basic rights and reclaim congress' lawmaking authority given to us by our constitution. i urge my colleagues to support the resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this resolution. which would ignore the considered judgment of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives and make stabilizing brace as favorite tool of mass shooters widely available without a background check. today is one of those clarifying moments when the priorities of the republican majority are in clear display. instead of taking up legislation to reduce gun violence in america, they are here advancing a bill to ensure more deadly weapons are in the hands of mass shooters in this country. what a disgrace. mr. speaker, gun violence continues to take the lives of more than 100 americans every day. it changes how safe we feel in our schools and in our houses of worship. it reduces vibrant cities to somber headlines. it takes their loved ones, old and young, and leaves us with

another anniversary of lives cut short and community forever changed. today rather than stawn against gun violence, the majority plans to pass this bill so they can yet again stand with the gun industry. rather than support the law enforcement officers who are on the frontlines of protecting our communities, the majority's attempting to weaken law enforcement by rolling back a rule created by the a.t.f. meant to protect us from dangerous weapons. a.t.f. is law enforcement agency tasked with keeping guns out of the wrong hands and keeping our gun laws in line with congressional intent to rule making. 1934 congress passed the national firearms act creating additional requirements to own certain, especially deadly dangerous firearms like short barreled rifles, which were widely used by violent criminals. congress included short barreled rifles because they combine the firepower of a rifle with the concealability of a smaller gun.

in recent years the gun industry discovered a way to circumvent the restrictions of the national firearms act by selling stabilizing braces, an accessory that allows a pistol to be fired from the shoulder turning it into a deadly yet conceivable short barreled rifle. in 2020 under the trump administration the a.t.f. concluded the stabilizing braces were being widely used to create short barreled rifles and published guidance regarding their use. house republicans cried foul. four days after the guidance was published, 90 house republicans sent a letter to a.t.f. and d.o.j. expressing their opposition. just a few days later, the guidance was withdrawn. a few months later under the biden administration the a.t.f. revived its efforts to regulate stabilizing races and published the final rule in january to ensure that our laws stay in line with the intent of congress

dating back to 1934 when congress decided that deadly concealable short barreled rifles should be subject to heightened regulation. but republicans will stop at nothing to block the a.t.f. from taking this simple lifesaving measure. even though they know that blocking this rule could have deadly consequences. mass shooters use guns with stabilizes braces to kill nine people outside a bar in dayton in 2019. 10 people including a responding police overs at a grocery store in boulder in 2021. to kill five people in an lgbtq nightclub in colorado springs last year. and just this past march, to kill six people, including three children, at a school in nashville. the 19th school shooting this year. national shooting occurred the day before the judiciary committee initially planned to mark up this resolution. so the majority apparently sensitive to the optics if not

the substance, postponed the markup. three weeks later they decided enough time had passed since three more families woke up with the child they had taken to school and they were ready to advance the bill to enable more mass shooters to inflict death and destruction in our communities. i guess they thought we had forgotten the lives lost in that terrible tragedy. we will never forget them. or the countless others who lose their lives to gun violence every day. today the majority seeks to pass this bill on the house floor. despite the deadly consequences. how many more lives will be lost because republicans refuse to acknowledge that these weapons are a favorite of mass shooters for their ability to make a gun both deadly and concealable. how many more people have to die before republicans will value the lives of our children over the profits of the gun industry? during the last congress, democrats put forth a range of solutions to prevent gun violence, to support law

enforcement, and to solve violent crimes. but our colleagues across the aisle continue to push unfettered access to every firearm and accessory imaginable. as republicans continue to seek freedom from gun regulation, we'll continue to see communities free from gun violence. i urge my colleagues to oppose this dangerous legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. members are reminded to take their conversations off the floor so the that can be heard. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hunt: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a cost estimate for h.j.res. 44 prepared by the congressional budget office. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered. . mr. hunt: mr. speaker, i yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. clyde. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. clyde: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to the gentleman from texas for yielding. i'm grateful we're considering

my congressional review act joint resolution of disapproval, h.j.res. 44, co-led by richard hudson, which would strike down the a.t.f.'s stabilizing brace rule. the a.t.f. -- under the a.t.f.'s new rule, any pistol brace firearm would be registered as a short-barrel rifle. subjecting them to the national firearms act of 1934. the a.t.f. informed law-abiding gun owners with pistols stabilizing these braces they would have 120 days registering these firearms or risk hefty fines up to $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison. this 120-day amnesty window recently ended at midnight on may 31. now we know what we know about

gun registration. the a.t.f. provides a few very heavy-handed rules. they can convert, dismantle their pistol brace firearms. that means basically a.t.f. says you can't have it anymore. again, if law-abiding owners refuse to comply with these ridiculous regulations, they face severe punishment, 10 years in prison and up to $250,000 fine for simply attaching a piece of plastic to their firearm and then they become a felon for life. the regulatory saga surrounded the pistol brace will make even the most seasoned lawmaker's head spin and it's so ridiculously big government that no american is expected to keep up with this irrational rulemaking. back in 2012, under the obama administration, pistol braces were determined to be legal and fully unrestricted. this decision was then reversed three years later in 2015

claiming stabilizing braces were illegal to shoulder, turning pistol brace firearms into unregistered short-barrelled rifles. this then changed again in 2017 when stabilizing braces were once more determined to be legal to shoulder as long as they were designed as a pistol brace. and now here we are in 2023 as the a.t.f. is yet again vilifying pistol stabilizing braces and turning their owners into felons. americans, including disabled veterans, are at risk of losing their right to keep and bear arms because of this a.t.f. rule that many americans likely do not even know exists. now i've heard many fear-inducing lies from my democrat colleagues that these braces make firearms more dangerous and deadly but that is simply not true. stabilizing braces were originally designed to help service-disabled veterans to not just enjoy the sport of shooting but to assist these wounded heroes in practicing their constitutional right to keep and

bear arms. the brace attaches to the rear of a firearm in order to anchor the gun to the shooter's arm, allowing them to shoot one-handed, and that's exactly what you're supposed to be able to do with a pistol, shoot one-handed. that's the definition. millions of americans, including service-disabled veterans, rely on these braces every day to exercise their second amendment freedoms and right to self-defense. yet, the biden a.t.f. rule criticizes these braces again, turning these law-abiding gun owners into felons overnight. this measure and many other back door gun control that is the ultimate goal is an unarmed america. this is what it's about, slowly chipping away americans' right to keep and bear arms, but not on my watch. but this rule doesn't just infringe upon americans' second amendment liberties. it shows a dangerous government overreach by the biden administration. congress maintains sole legislative authority, not

government agencies, not the executive branch. congress writes laws, not unelected bureaucrats at the a.t.f. this is nothing more than governing by executive fiat to disarm our nation and destroy americans' second amendment rights. but today, the people's house can take a stand against this unlawful overreach. proud to have my friend, congressman hudson, in joining me in co-leading this vital effort as well as 180 original house republican co-sponsors. but the house must act now to save law-abiding gun owners from being criticized by the a.t.f. we must back service-disabled amer americans. and we need to stop the biden administration's overreach and tyranny in its tracks. i urge all colleagues,

republican and democrat, to support h.j.res. 44. if they don't do so i hope they're prepared to go home and say they responsible the unconstitutional rule to tstrip service-disabled veterans their rights. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hunt: i'll yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. clyde: to go home and refuse to take a stand against this brazen government overreach. but i trust that they instead choose to join me in voting yet on h.j.res. 44 and i implore my colleagues to join me because by passing this legislation we will send a resounding message to both the judicial system and the nation that we firmly reject the a.t.f.'s unconstitutional rule and executive overreach and we unapologetically offend service-connected wounded veterans their rights to keep and bear arms. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: go home and explain to the people why we support the a.t.f.'s absolutely necessary actions to defend the safety of the american people. and with that i am happy to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thompson: thank you for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this bill. arm braces are used to convert assault pistols into short-barreled assault rifles that are more accurate, easier to conceal, and can fire rounds capable of penetrating body armor. unregistered arm braces equip firearms have been used in a number of high-profile mass shootings. dayton, ohio, nine killed. 17 injured outside of a bar. boulder, colorado, 10 killed at a grocery store. colorado springs, five killed, 19 injured at a club.

nashville, tennessee, six killed, including three 9-year-old children at an elementary school. the a.t.f. final rule closes the loophole that helps arm brace-equipped pistols sill come vent firearm -- circumvent firearm regulations including the national firearms act. the resolution before us today will take an already menacing and lethal weapon and turn it into a more accurate killing machine. this is misguided. it's callous, and it will only lead to more deaths. i urge my colleagues to vote no, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hunt: mr. speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. hudson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hudson: thank you, mr. speaker. and i thank my colleague.

i rise today in support of the resolution. our nation's veterans have served our nation honorably. they and their families have sacrificed for our freedoms, and today, they're calling on us to support their second amendment right to keep and bear arms and to ensure they can protect themselves and their families. will you answer the call? everyone in this chamber, mr. speaker, both republicans and democrats say we support our nation's veterans. well, now is the chance to prove it. today we can block an overreaching regulation by a.t.f. on pistol braces. we can defend the right of our veterans, and we can defend the rights of all law-abiding gun owners. a new regulation by president joe biden's a.t.f. on pistol braces have turned millions of combat-wounded veterans and law-abiding citizens into felons overnight. so before my colleagues cast a vote today, i want you to know

the story of how the pistol brace was developed. several years ago a combat-wounded veteran went to a local gun range with his buddy. however, he was asked to leave due to his lack of control over the pistol because of his combat wounds. so after leaving the range, his buddy went home and created the first pistol brace concept so that his friend and other combat-wounded veterans could exercise their constitutional right to protect themselves, their families, their homes, and can participate in shooting sports again. even on pistol platforms that were otherwise too cumbersome for a disabled shooters to use. two years ago i held a press conference with a group of combat veterans around the country, including army veteran rick cicero. they came to share how devastating a new regulation from president joe biden's a.t.f. would be on veterans. cicero lost his right leg and

right arm due to an i.e.d. explosion while serving our country in afghanistan. as a son of a firearms instructor and long time shooter, he didn't want to give up his second amendment rights and rick's own words that day, quote, the most important thing to me about the brace is it's another avenue of getting injured veterans out of the house and helps them maintain a bit of confidence that you're still able to do something, end quote. veterans like rick cicero served our country and put their bodies literally on the line for us and for our families. but starting this month, the a.t.f. has taken away their god-given rights protected by our constitution. it's outrageous. since the creation of the brace, the a.t.f. has repeatedly approved stabilizing brace designs. recently as july, 2018, the a.t.f. said a brace, quote, used to assist shooters and stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand is

not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making an n.a.f. firearm, end quote. as a result of those former decisions, tens of millions of americans already legally owned pistols with stabilizing braces. yet, the a.t.f.'s new rule requires owners of the device to either remove or destroy them or register the brace firearms with the a.t.f. as short-barreled rifles. those who live in states like connecticut or new york that don't allow a short-barreled rifle, you don't have an option. you can't register that brace. this registration process involves so many fingerprints as well as photographs of the owner and the firearm. additionally, the registration will require a $200 tax stamp. and the 120-day grace period is well short of previous grace periods when a gun was reclassified by the n.f.a.

they had over six to reregister that weapon. this has led to less compliance and leads me to expect if they had the short timeline by design. it's especially difficult for service members deployed overseas like so many in my district. if they're overseas when the deadline hit at the end of last month, they're unable to register their firearms. they're now felons. think about that. they're overseas serving us and we've now labeled them a felon. this travesty illustrates the dangers of an unchecked federal agency that's willing to go around congress and the millions of constituents we represent well, our constituents are fed up. they're sick and tired of unelected bureaucrats making new laws. enough is enough. i'd like to thank my friend, mr. andrew clyde, for partnering with me on this important resolution, and i urge my colleagues to support it. and with that i will yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield one minute -- three minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the speaker and i thank the distinguished ranking member and certainly the distinguished member who is managing, my friend from texas. but let me be very clear. i support a stabilizing brace for disabled americans and veterans. could anybody stand here and disagree with that? they were wounded in combat. they are fighters for our freedom. it is my honor to represent the veterans cemetery in houston, texas, over a number of years.

let me be very clear on what we are debating here today. might i say that there are veterans in the a.t.f., men and women who served in the united states military who've come home to serve again. their desire is not to violate the second amendment. neither is their desire to take innocent americans in. you can get a brace for those disabled, those veterans, and it is a legal process. this provision, specifically, is to deal with when you make it a lethal weapon to be used like an assault weapon to kill people. i don't know why we can't be clear. let me tell you why it's very clear. . because we started out with this bill so many days and weeks ago, but in the midst of it, someone used the exact same brace to go into the covenant school in nashville and murder three

9-year-olds and three staff members. that's what the a.t.f. is against. eight children dying every day and 40,000 americans dying throughout the year through gun violence. not your second amendment. who would even think that you could tamper with the second amendment? it's in the bill of rights. but we do believe that when you have this weapon being created to be the kind of dangerous lethal weapon to kill, americans will stand up and say, it's not about the second amendment, it's about saving lives. and dayton, 2019, nine killed, 17 injured. boulder, 2001, 10 kill -- 2021, 10 killed. nashville, 2023, six killed and children are amongst them. and this is the procedure that is used. not at a shooting range where our veterans may go. but for criminal acts that kill people. and let me let you hear from the

person who actually designed it. it was a creator of the tactical stabilizing brace who acknowledged in a 2017 interview that many who brought the braces -- bought the braces did so to avoid the national firearms registration. they were going to do bad. not those good veterans. he also said during our joint hearing last month to a question i asked to discuss the a.t.f. order, that the stabilizing brace was originally designed to allow a disabled veteran to shoot a pistol more accurately and safely. under this -- mr. nadler: i yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for another 30 seconds. ms. jackson lee: under this regulation they will still be able and allowed to do so. let me be very clear. it is for veterans and under the regulation of a.t.f. who is full with combat veterans themselves doing their duty to this nation who looked at this and said they

cannot stand for more children being murdered by someone taking a brace and using -- not disabled at all, but to make a steady aim to kill innocent and take innocent lives. i commend the a.t.f. for its fortitude and i will tell you that the work we need to be doing right now, passing the kimberly vaughan firearms safe storage act, an assault weapons ban that more than 200 people voted against but the right people voted for. this is not an injury to our veterans, it is saving lives. who would stand up here against a veteran? nobody. but i am going to stand up here against the killing of children. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlemthegentlewoman's time ha. the gentleman from texas is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. rutherford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for three minutes. mr. rutherford: i thank my good friend from texas for yielding. mr. speaker, the second amendment, which undergirds all

the other amendments, is the only amendment in the u.s. constitution to include the following four words. shall not be infringed. as a lifetime law enforcement officer and former sheriff, i have seen firsthand how law-abiding citizens using legal firearms protect themselves, their families, their neighbors and other innocent persons from those who would do them harm. not one crime that i've ever seen, mr. hunt, was -- was a stabilizing brace ever used. while we prioritized safe gun ownership and worked to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and those with mental illness, the federal government shall not infringe on the rights of legal gun ownership. that means that the executive branch must not use this administrative rulemaking to rewrite the bounds of the second

amendment. all without even a vote from congress. and that, mr. speaker, is exactly what the biden administration is trying to do. they legislate by fiat through rulemaking. earlier this year the a.t.f. finalized a rule that redefines these stabilizing braces as a short-barreled rifle. after decades, after decades they changed the interpretation. mr. speaker, this insidious rule would turn millions of law-abiding gun owners, including many disabled veterans, as we've heard, who rely on these stabilizing braces, would turn them into criminals simply for possessing firearms with a legal accessory and i'm proud to co-sponsor this important resolution and urge my colleagues to support its passage. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from florida yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized or new york is recognized. mr. nadler: new york. mr. speaker, i now yield one minute to the distinguished gentlelady from nevada, ms. titus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from nevada is recognized for one minute. ms. titus: thank you very much, mr. speaker, mr. chairman. my colleagues across the aisle are shamelessly trying to make this into a veteran issue. it's an n.r.a. bill, plain and simple. and they're just trying to put lipstick on a pig. if they cared so much about veterans, they would have voted for the pact act, but they didn't seem to worry too much at that point. over the years we've seen the gun industry circumvent existing laws by developing new and advanced accessories to increase the power and lethal capabilities of certain firearms. from bump stocks to auto seres to pistol braces, these unnecessary accessories just serve the primary purpose of making guns more deadly.

unfortunately we have seen this play out in events so tragic that we just have to refer to them by their first name and people know what we mean. pulse night club, sandy hook, nashville, october 1 shooting in my district, and others. every time, every precious life was taken with the help of one of these accessories. time and time again we have reminded our republican colleagues of these facts. yet they offer nothing but thoughts and prayers and then proceed to try and expand access to guns and conversion devices. vote no on this. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hunter: mr. speaker, i -- mr. hunt: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from missouri. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri is recognized for three minutes. mr. burlison: thank you for yielding. i rise today in support of h.j.resolution 44. which will nullify the a.t.f.'s overreaching and

unconstitutional rule to regulate firearms that happen to have stabilizing braces such as short-barreled rifles. make no mistake, the a.t.f.'s rule is nothing short than that of an assault on our second amendment rights. our constitution does not grant the a.t.f. the authority to unilaterally redefine what laws constitute a firearm. because law making power rests with the elected representatives of the american people. if pistol brace owners fail to register their firearms with the a.t.f. they, will be deemed felons -- a.t.f., they will be deemed felons, face up to 10 years in prison and fined thousands. this is arbitrary. it bucks a decade of the a.t.f.'s own precedent. it is an assault on our second amendment and it threatens to turn millions hurr, tens of mils

of law-abiding americans into criminals overnight. so i urge a vote in favor of h.j.resolution 44. protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and stop this gun grab. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from michigan, ms. tlaib. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized for two minutes. ms. tlaib: thank you so much. mr. speaker, i don't think my colleagues on the other side are aware that it is gun violence awareness month. which should actually be every month. we've already had over 290 mass shootings this year. that's more mass shootings than days in the year. it's been time for us to come together to try to address the horrific gun crisis. it's tearing our communities apart, mr. speaker, by our

legislative inaction every single day. so how, how do we start gun violence awareness month? we're pushing, they are, pushing a bill that would make mass shootings even more deadlier. you heard that right. the plan is for them to raise awareness around gun violence in our country, which again has been horrific and more deadlier, to ensure that it impacts more american families than ever before by making it easier to access stabilizing braces that have been misused, that have been used, again, for mass shootings. and it's not just the mass shootings, mr. speaker. it's everyday violence that doesn't even make the news anymore. it's a traffic esty that campaign -- travesty that campaign cash from the n.r.a., gun manufacturers and pro-death lobby have blocked the major reforms we need to keep our communities safe. our communities need an assault weapons ban. we need reforms on handguns and bold initiatives to reduce the number of firearms in our communities. most of all, mr. speaker, we need accountability for the people that are causing this violence. because the gun violence crisis

is enabling more people in power unwilling to do anything to stop the mass murder of countless americans. especially our children. i look forward to supporting future legislation that truly does fight the crisis with the urgency it deserves instead of pouring more fuel on the fire like this disgusting republican bill. thank you and i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hunt: i'm a texan. i'm a veteran. and i am a gun owner. i'm a gun owner of multiple ar-15's, primarily for hunting and, of course, to protect my three little kids at home. a 4-year-old, a 2-year-old and a 5-month-old. and no one is going to walk into my house and harm my children. or my wife. my family. that i can assure you. 6%, 6% of all homicides, gun homicides, are at the hands of

an ar-15 and weapons that are outfitted with a pistol brace. 6%. 60% are at the hands of a hand gun. and the rest are weapons designated not as the two that i just mentioned. 6%. this is clearly an attempt to diminish our second amendment rights. because if you just take away 6% of the gun homicides, it leaves with 94% and i can assure you that a homicidal maniac that wants to arbitrarily murder people will find another weapon of choice. i hear the words weapon of war oftentimes as well. i'm an a-64 delta apache pilot. i flew 55 combat air missions in baghdad. that is a weapon of war. a civilian-made ar-15 is nothing that i would ever take to

battle. now, i also recognize that we do have a mass shooting problem in this country and my colleagues on the left would, of course, blame the ar-15. but i stand before you to blame the homicidal maniac. i walk in these halls every single day and i am surrounded by brave men and women that carry ar-15's and weapons every single day. i have to walk the medal detector just to get in this building every single day and just because i wear this pin does not make me more important than my children. so what i offer is that instead of trying to erode our second amendment right, i would offer, let's protect our kids. let's ensure that they have the same protection that we have in the halls of congress. there are over 400 million guns currently in circulation. by the way, the overwhelming

majority of the people that own these weapons are law-abiding citizens like myself. i refuse to allow the erosion of our second amendment rights to further disarmour population, making us less safe as a further push toward communism, because that's what happens. you disarm your population, and then the government runs amok. and we, especially down in texas, are not going to allow that to happen. i certainly encourage my colleagues to support this resolution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, the gentleman says that the cause of gun violence in this country is homicidal maniacs. we have 78% -- i'm sorry, 78

times as much gun violence per unit of population than any other country in the world. does the gentleman think that we have 78 times as mentally ill, that we have 78 times as many gun maniacs in this country as anywhere else? per unit of population? that's a slander on the american people. the obvious cause is we have guns run amok. mr. speaker, republicans have claimed this rule effects forearm braces. it does not. if a disabled veteran needs a forearm brace to shoot a pistol, he or she can still get one without registering it. the only firearms affected by this rule are those that have a brace that is, quote, designed, made and intended to be fired from the shoulder, closed quote. and if a veteran if a veteran wants a covered base, all they have to do is register it. the a.t.f. waived the fee.

all this rule does is close the loophole so all short-barreled arriveles are required by the background check. i reserve. mr. hunt: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. mr. nadler: i am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. raskin. mr. raskin: i want to thank the chairman for his courtesy in granting me two minutes. today is june 13. 164 days in the year 2023 and 291 mass chutings. we are having on average a mass shooting and a half every single day. our colleagues would not would like to talk about it because they don't want -- want to talk

about it on the day it happens. and this unlimited open-arms policy is giving america today. a number of my colleagues have invoked the second amendment and only quote half of it. the right of the people of the people to keep and bear arms. a well regulated for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. we don't want them to repeal the second amendment but we want them to read the second amendment because the second amendment would ask us why we are allowing people to go into elementary schools, wal-marts, churches and synagogues with a.r.-15's and sometimes with destabilizing brace like in ohio, colorado, colorado

springs, nashville, tennessee and assassinate our people. if a foreign government were doing it, we would declare war on them. but these weapons of mass destruction around the country, they want to allow it. and says the second amendment must be respected because they believe the second amendment gives the people the right to throw the government. they must have an arsenal equal to the government. it's hard to explain the rest of the constitution. the second amendment doesn't mention rebellion snarks -- can i reone more minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. raskin: congress has the power to call forth the militias from the states in order to subpoena express snarks -- insurrection.

how about the republican guarantee clause, people should guarantee a republican form of government and assist them inputting down domestic violence. the treason shall consist of levying arms against the union. i could give you six more examples. section 3 of the 14th amendment anybody who has sworn to uphold the constitution and violates that by engaging in insurrection shall not hold federal or state office again. that is not the meaning of the constitution. the regulation is perfectly constitutional and want more bloodshed. it has nothing to do with the second amendment and perfectly constitutional for us to have hell here versus district of columbia and justice scalia wrote that opinion.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. hunt: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. donalds. >> i want to welcome the people in the gallery and something that congress should be doing. we have a federal agency called the a.t.f. that has unilaterally decided want to make illegal a piece of equipment that they legalized. more than a decade ago. the a.t.f. said that the pistol brace is a functional and legal piece that can be added to, and i stress added to a firearm and they allowed it to be sold in the united states for more than a decade. why do i say added to. the people in the gallery, have you ever seen a pistol brace? it is mostly mostly plastic or

carbon fiber and wraps around your forearm and pole that sticks out to the mid-point of your hand. the purpose for said brace is for people who actually had an arm injury but wanted to take advantage of their second amendment rights and a.t.f. more than a decade ago allowed that brace to be sold in the united states. and now we have same a.t.f. who's deciding to go back and say that that brace now needs to be registered and if you don't register it, you are a felon in the united states. if that is not a gross violation of separation of powers, i don't know what is, because congress never gave the a.t.f. that authority to criminalize american citizens after they were allowed to buy a piece of equipment. if an agency says that they

think a piece of equipment is a detriment to public safety, then it it is the requirement of the agency and executive branch to come to this body and ask for the legal permission to say so. they did not. they just don't get to act on their own accord. they just don't get to define terms for themselves unless congress gives them that ability. mr. speaker, this is one of the fundamental problems we are having here at the national level is that we have too many agencies who are taking too many latitudes with the liberties of the american people. and instead are going to their representatives for clarification. they decide they want to make them felons through the back door. that is a violation of separation of powers. it is a violation of the very constitution and violation of the liberties of the american people that we are all here to represent, regardless about how you feel about guns and

regardless of how you may feel about a pistol brace, none of us should be supportive of an agency using their -- or not using their authorities to criminalize american people. this is a good c.r.a. gentlem an recognize dollars for another minute. >> this is a measure to stop a federal agency from stepping over its bounds and turning law-abiding, law-abiding american citizens into felons. a votes no on this measure is a vote to allow the federal agencies to run amuck, unobstructed over the will of the people. our members should be supporting it and every member in this chamber should be supporting this resolution today.

and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield one minute to the distinguished gentlelady from pennsylvania, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: i rise in the millions of victims of gun violence. we need to acknowledge what it needs to be an american today. it means checking where the exits are in a grocery store or afraid to drop off a child at an elementary school? what are we doing, this is a slap in the face of victims of mass chutings and ignores realities and demonstrates how republicans choose the gun lobby over children and families. they planned to mark this up after march 28 and postponed after one used it to murder children at a school in

nashville, tennessee. and the tree of life families are fighting for justice. and the mass shootings have become commonplace this is hard to schedule this. this bill is shameful. you are not with us, get out of the way. you owe it to the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. gentleman reserves. mr. nadler: i am prepared to close. mr. hunt: we have no more speakers. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, we have heard the majority claim over and over that this rule is going to come as a surprise to the gun industry and to those who purchased slaiblizing brace dances this is not true. there are videos online to

circumvent the national firearms act. one brace supporter said the short-barreled rifle could fit into a backpack. let's be clear the majority is defending the he availability without a background check that allows rifles to be fit into a backpack. the majority has seen these. yet they continue to seek to invalidate this rule and claim it will come as a surprise. the fact is those who profit from the sail of -- sale of those bracees known it is circumventing the law. in 2018, five years ago, a.t.f. under president trump told the brace manufacturer it was engaging in false advertising by claiming that it was a.t.f. approved when a.t.f. had not evaluated those. i ask unanimous consent to

insert july 18, 2018 letter from the a.t.f. to s.b. tactical brace manufacturer saying they must cease the tiesment because they had not been approved by a.t.f. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. nadler: they passed dangerous weapons and keeping them under the wrong hands and underwent the review process that began under the trump administration. they determined they were exploiting loopholes that could be used to assemble a short-barreled rifle. the a.t.f. used a standard administrative process to close this loophole and protect our communities. there should be nothing controversial. but republicans want to overturn this regulation and put more stabilizing bracees in the hands of more mass shooters.

mass shooters have used stabilizing bracees to kill nine people outside a bar in dayton and 10 people in boulder in 2021, killed five people in colorado springs last year. and just a few months ago to kill six people and three children at a school in nashville. they are putting the interests of the gun industry over the safety of their communities. i urge all members to oppose this dangerous legislation and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york yields. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hunt: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 495 previous question is ordered on the joint resolution. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the

resolution. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval chapter 8 title five united statescode submitted by the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and close i haves for firearms with attached stabilizing brace dances. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the joint resolution. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the joint resolution is pas passed -- for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. nadler: i ask unanimous consent for the -- ask for the yeas and nays. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: purr sawnt to the order of house of may 26, 2023, the unfinished

business is the further consideration of the veto message by the president on house resolution 42. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: house joint resolution 42. joint resolution disproving the action of the district of columbia council and approving the comprehensive policing and justice reform amendment act of 2022. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house on reconsideration pass the joint resolution. the objections of the president to the contrary not withstanding. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for one hour. mr. comer: mr. speaker, for purposes of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from maryland, mr. raskin, the ranking member of the house oversight committee, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

mr. comer: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield now to the distinguished gentlelady from the district of columbia, ms. norton, for as much time as she may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. norton: i thank my good friend for yielding. i urge my colleagues to vote no on overriding the veto. h.r. -- h.j.res. 42 is a profoundly undemocratic resolution. congress, in which the nearly 700,000 district of columbia residents have no voting representation, is attempting to nullify legislation passed by d.c.'s locally elected legislature. while it is true that congress has the constitutional authority to legislate on local d.c. matters, it is false that congress has a constitutional

obligation to do so. it is a choice, d.c. resident, a majority of -- residents, a majority of whom are black and brown, are capable of governing themselves. democracy is, according to the directionary, and i'm quoting, a government in which the supreme court is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation, usually involving periodically free elections, end quote. d.c.'s lack of representation -- voting representation in congress and congress' authority over d.c. are the an thight sis of democracy. the legislative history and merits of d.c.'s comprehensive policing and justice reform act of 2022, which is the subject of h.j.res. 42, should be irrelevant since there is never justification for congress nullifying legislation enacted by d.c. but i would like to briefly

discuss them. d.c.'s comprehensive policing and justice reform amendment act of 2022 is consistent with house democrats' george floyd justice in policing act, president biden's executive order on policing and police accountability, and transparency legislation enacted by dozens of states, both red and blue, to improve public safety and public trust after the murder of george floyd. as president biden said in his veto message, h.j.res. 42, quote, would overturn commonsense police reforms, end quote. d.c.'s comprehensive justice and reform amendment act of 2022 would, among other things, make it easier to fire officers for misconduct, prohibit the hiring of officers with prior

misconduct, strengthen civilian oversight police and prohibit chokeholds. congress requires d.c.'s local legislation -- legislature, d.c. council to pass legislation twice, separated by at least 13 days. the council passed the comprehensive policing and justice reform amendment act of 2022 by 11-0 and 13-0. while the legislation was enacted without the d.c. mayor's signature, the mayor has urged congress to oppose h.res. 42. the d.c. council has 13 members, the members are elected by d.c. residents. if d.c. residents do not like how the members vote, they can vote them out of office. congress has 535 voting members. the members are elected by residents of states, none are elected by d.c. residents. if d.c. residents do not like how the members vote, they cannot vote them out of office.

the revolutionary war was fought to give consent to the governed and end to end taxation without representation. yet d.c. residents cannot consent to any action taken by congress, whether national or local matters, though they pay full federal taxes and d.c. pays more federal taxes per capita than any state and more federal taxes than 19 states. while being denied voting representation in congress. in closing, i would like to set the record straight on the legal effect of h.res. 42. while congress can legislation on -- legislate on any d.c. matter at any time, the process for a disapproval resolution is set forth in the d.c. home rule act. under the home rule act, the disapproval resolution only has legal effect if congress passes it before the -- affect if congress passes it before the

expiration of the review period for the legislation that is the subject of the disapproval resolution. in the case of the comprehensive policing and justice reform amendment act of 2022, the review period expired before the senate passed h.res. 42. therefore h.res. 42 would have no legal effect even if the veto were overridden. nevertheless, i urge my colleagues to vote no on overriegd the veto and i say to every member -- overriding the veto and i say to every member of congress, keep your hands off d.c. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. comer: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. garbarino. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. garbarino: thank you, chairman. madam speaker, i rise in support of overriding the presidential veto of h.j.res. 42. disapproving the action of the district of columbia council in

approving the comprehensive policying and justice reform amendment act of 2022. democrat politicians in cities like new york and d.c. have continuously fed anti-police sentiment that endangers our officers and makes it harder for them to do their jobs. policies like those in d.c.'s deeply misguided police reform law only empower criminals at the expense of our men and women in blue. in fact, since these policies were enacted, more than 1,000 officers have left the d.c.'s police force. dedicated public servants are resigning in record numbers due to the current policing environment and very few are willing to take their place. that means fewer officers to combat rising crime. this has become a public safety crisis. i was proud to join with congressman clyde to offer our joint resolution to disapprove the d.c. law, which went on to gain a majority of support in both the house and senate, bipartisan majorities in both the house and senate. congress sent a clear message that enough is enough. we will not stand by while our law enforcement officers are vilified and handcuffed by

pro-criminal, anti-cop legislation. with this veto, president biden showed his disregard not only for law enforcement but also for the american people whose duly elected representatives votessed to block this harmful d.c. regulation. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the override, to show our brave men and women in law enforcement that we have their backs and to reject the president's talent to undermine the will of congress -- attempt to undermine the will of congress and the people we represent. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. comer: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. raskin: i speak in opposition to this effort to overturn president biden's veto of h.j.res. 42, legislation that was introduced by georgia representative clyde to strike down the people of washington, d.c.'s, local police reform law. if it rings a bell, it's no wonder. the house and senate have already voted on h.j.res. 42, the overwhelming majority of

democrats voted to oppose it when republicans brought it to the floor in april. and when it reached president biden's desk in may, he vetoed mr. clyde's resolution as he promised that he would. although the resolution narrowly passed the house and senate, in neither chamber did it assemble anywhere close to the 2/3 majority required in both chambers in order to override a veto. so, mr. speaker, today's vote is an exercise in time wasting and vein glorious futility. the republican majority doesn't have the votes to override the veto and it doesn't deserve to. h.j.res. 42 would nullify a law passed unanimously by the council of the district of columbia representing more than 700,000 residents, to promote accountability for police officers who use excessive force or you a buys their power. a goal -- or abuse their power. a goal the vast majority of americans share. it bans the use of chokeholds and other dangerous neck restraints and sets reasonable standards for the use of deadly force. it requires public release of

body-worn camera footage and creates a police officer misconduct database, but only for officers who have been either convicted of a crime or for whom allegations of abuse have been civilly or administratively sustained. the law prohibits d.c. from hiring police officers who have engaged in prior criminal or official misconduct. most importantly, the new law empowers the chief of police to fire or discipline officers who break the law by removing police disciplinary matters from the collective bargaining table. mr. speaker, you may recall that this is the provision that galvanized opposition to d.c.'s law. this provision is why republicans want the congress of the united states to behave like a 535-member nationally elected, super city council with the power to overturn the work of the 13-member local council of the district of columbia, electedded by the actual resident -- elected by the actual residents of washington,

d.c. so what's so important about this provision? well, the local police union doesn't like it. and they've been the chief lobbyists against it. they sued, when this reform legislation was first passed in d.c., asserting that the provision removing police discipline from the collective bargaining table violated the u.s. constitution. but they lost their case in the u.s. district court for d.c. and the u.s. court of appeals for d.c. and the supreme court failed to grant cert. now in their haste to kick around the people of washington and not to support d.c. police officers who, after all, came to our defense on january 6, many of whom were wounded by the insurrectionists and ended up with broken fingers and arms and legs and so on, our g.o.p. colleagues are suddenly embracing the extreme position on police disciplinary matters which has already been rejected by the courts, in which jurisdictions across america are debating and doing away with.

now, why is the ending of discipline of police officers, a subject for collective bargaining, such a big deal? well, washington itself is a good example. the d.c. metropolitan police department has been forced by labor arbitrators to rehire a significant number of officers who had been fired for engaging in serious criminal misconduct. including criminal assault, including sexual assault. every d.c. police chief for at least the last 25 years has expressed outrage about having to rehire bad cops after they've been fired for engaging in serious misconduct. forcing police chiefs to reinstate bad cops fired for breaking the law is bad for public safety, bad for community trust, and bad for morale among the vast majority of good police officers who are doing their jobs. like the ones who came to defend

us on january 6, 2001 -- 2021, against the violent mob insurrection incited by the former president. this should not be a partisan point. this is a matter for local decision making in washington, d.c., as it is in every other jurisdiction in the country. 700,000 tax paying american citizens have decided through their locally elected representatives that the chief of police, who is appointed by the mayor, should be able to discipline bad actors within the police department, reversing the d.c. government on this local matter is outrageous interference by congressing to impose a bad public policy on the capital city. the d.c. police accountability law makes reasonable, commonsense reforms that will make the d.c. police more accountable to the community of people they serve, increase public trust, and strengthen public safety. in fact, multiple provisions constituting the d.c. police reform law are mainstream reforms that enjoy strong public support and are congruent with

the george floyd justice in policing act, which passed the house in the 117th congress, and with police accountability laws enacted by dozens of states and localities in recent years in the wake of notorious episodes of brutality like the unconscionable murder of george floyd. for example, since may of 2020, at least 24 states have enacted legislation to limit the use of dangerous neck restraints against citizens. 39 states have passed reforms represented to officer education and training. 26 states have enacted laws to improve data collection and increase transparency. at least seven states, including arizona, colorado and wisconsin, have passed legislation requiring the publication of police database or use of force information. 20 states have enacted laws use of force standards. this is a matter for states and localities to decide

themselves. reversing d.c. on this local matter is outrageous policy. voting to override the veto of this g.o.p. resolution is another attack on local decision making federalism and the policies of meaningful oversight and accountability that the majority of americans want. a vote to override the veto is a vote against political democracy and local self-government. a yes vote today is a vote against commonsense oversight over policing in washington d.c. i urge my colleagues to stand up for democracy. stand up for political self-determination and vote no on this attempt to override the president's veto. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. i continue to support this bipartisan resolution asthma the gentlewoman reserves the balance

of her time of my colleagues in the house did two months ago. mr. comer: not much has passed. since congress sent this resolution to president biden we have seem rampant crime in the district of columbia. d.c. visitors are still unsafe. the metro police department continues to face retention and recruitment challenges. crime levels are still higher in 2023 compared to 2022. total crime is up 27%. violent crime is up 19%. moarveg theft is up 118%. this is unacceptable. most notably as of june 7, ddz hit a concerning marker, there have been 100 murders in d.c. this year. this is the earlier iest point that the city has reached this marker since 2003.

however, in the committee march 29 hearing, councilman said there is no crime crisis in d.c. in another oversight committee hearing on may 16, matthew graves refused to take availability for his office's failure to prosecute 67% of cases last year. 67%. the d.c. city council and u.s. attorney has failed the residents of krz. congress has the duty to oversee the nation's capitol and ensure safety for its residents and visitors. time for this body to stand up to the criminals. i call on my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution. the president's veto of h.j. resolution 42 serves no purpose other than to allow crime to spread and hinder our police to

protect the d.c. community and the nation's capital city. i urge my colleagues to uphold what we in the senate have done to vote in favor of this resolution. i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman reserve? the gentleman reserves -- the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. raskin: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is will the house on reconsideration pass the joint resolution of the president contrary. the vote must be by the yeas and nays. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings will be

postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from snra seek recognition? mr. bilirakis: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and insert extraneous material on the record on h.r. 1615. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 495 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1615. the chair appoints the gentleman from georgia, mr. mccormick to preside over the committee of the whole.

the chair hasexamined the journal of the last day's proceedings the house is in the committee of the whole on consideration for h.r. 1615 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to prohibit the use of federal funds to ban gas stoves. the chair: the bill is considered read for the first time. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour of the committee on energy and commerce or respective designees. the gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis, and the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. bilirakis. mr. bilirakis: mr. chair, i

yield myself such time as i may consume. i think representative kelly armstrong for his work on this initiative. as i said in our full committee markup this month, the american people have had enough of biden administration officials big brother dictating every aspect of their lives of the type of car you drive to what appliance you can use in the kitchen. back in january, we heard disturbing reports from the commissioners at the consumer protection safety commission that a universal ban on gas stoves was on the table thvment would be an assault on

american's consumer individual freedoms to decide what works best for their households. republicans stand with the american people who agree that banning gas stoves is an egregious overreach and government knows best ideology at its worst. this will prohibit the c.p.s.c. from using federal dollars to regular you lailt or issue regulations on gas stoves as a banned product and prohibit the sale or substantially increase the price of gas stoves while still allow c.p.s.c. to protect consumers. sadly the green new deal agenda has fueled the flames of local

governments and many have already enacted their own complete gas stove bans such as new york and some cities in california. in fact, many of these cities are facing their own battles such as in berkley california, the first city to enact a ban in 2019 where a law was struck down by the ninth circuit of appeals and in palo, alto, california and celebrity chef whose as andres who argued gas appliances were necessary to achieve their signature complex flavors. this carveout from the far left is plain hypocrisy. down in my state of florida, we just entered hurricane season and households who are

struggling after a natural disaster takes out their like that and would find it even harder to cook their food without a gas stove. all these reasons, clearly demonstrate why this legislation is needed to prevent government overreach. i ask my colleagues to support h.r. 1615 and pass this commonsense bipartisan legislation that supports american consumer choice and freedom for households to decide what works best for their own lives. makes sense, mr. chairman. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. pallone: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise to speak in strong opposition to h.r. 1615, this bill is an attempt to deliberately mislead the

american people into thinking they are at risk of losing their gas stoves. let me be emphatically clear, the consumer products safety commission is not banning gas stoves. the idea that anyone is coming into american homes to remove gas stoves is ridiculous. they are not banning gas stoves. but these facts have not stopped supporters of this bill from touting this false narrative to scare consumers and proposing legislation like this bill that will have detrimental impacts on our constituents' health and safety. by limiting the tools that the cpsc can use, h.r. 1615 puts politics over politics over people and slogans over science-based decision making. the federal agency has a long industry of protecting children and adults from a wide range of products that are hazardous and

pose a risk of injury or death. it carries out its mission, and recalls dangerous products to keep them off the market and works with industry to develop safety standards and issues and enforces standards for hazardous products to ensure these products are not dangerous. in recent years, the cpsc has removed infants' sleeping products and window cording and worked with industry to reduce the risk of fires. the cpsc work saves lives by protecting consumers in many instances children from dangerous products. h.r. 1615 will prevent the cpsc from doing its job. they issued a recall of a gas stove product that was a