Chip Roy
Representative for Texas · Republican · United States
“We don't necessarily need a bureaucratic organization that its entire organizational structure and bias is structured against us, despite the fact that we fund the overwhelming majority of its operations. The United Nations has been operating against our interests.”
“Madam Chair, I note that it is just not enough for us to say that they can do better. This is an organization that has too often allowed terrorist infiltration within its own entities and sided with terrorist organizations directly against us and our allies.”
“When you are a nation that is $40 trillion in debt, when you are a nation that is trying to figure out how to fund the basics of government and find the dollars that we need to secure the Nation with a strong defense, to modernize our military, to ensure border security, all the things that we need to do while we are still racking up debt…”
“Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Florida for his strong work on making reforms to this appropriations package. He did it in the previous Congress last year. He is doing it [[Page H4521]] again this year.”
“Again, I applaud the chairman for all of his great work on things like UNRWA, working in collaboration with me and others on trying to remove that funding--it was very important--the United Nations Human Rights Council abomination, the United Nations Population Fund, other things that I know that the gentleman has been working on.”
“Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment. The text of the amendment is as follows: At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following: Sec. __.”
The complete record
Every one of 214 lines we hold for Chip Roy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 5.
“78) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of the Longfin Smelt''. Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House any joint resolution specified in section 4 of this resolution. All points of order against consideration of each such joint resolution are waived. Each such joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in each such joint resolution are waived.”
“All points of order against provisions in each such joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on each such joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit. Sec. 2. The joint resolutions referred to in the first section of this resolution are as follows: (a) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 60) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Park Service relating to ``Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles''. (b) The joint resolution (H.J. Res.”
“89, PROVIDING CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO ``CALIFORNIA STATE MOTOR VEHICLE AND ENGINE AND NONROAD ENGINE POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS; THE `OMNIBUS' LOW NO X REGULATION; WAIVER OF PREEMPTION; NOTICE OF DECISION''; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 354 and ask for its immediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 354 Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House any joint resolution specified in section 2 of this resolution. All points of order against consideration of each such joint resolution are waived. Each such joint resolution shall be considered as read.”
“87, PROVIDING CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO ``CALIFORNIA STATE MOTOR VEHICLE AND ENGINE POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS; HEAVY- [[Page H1694]] DUTY VEHICLE AND ENGINE EMISSION WARRANTY AND MAINTENANCE PROVISIONS; ADVANCED CLEAN TRUCKS; ZERO EMISSION AIRPORT SHUTTLE; ZERO-EMISSION POWER TRAIN CERTIFICATION; WAIVER OF PREEMPTION; NOTICE OF DECISION''; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 88, PROVIDING CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO ``CALIFORNIA STATE MOTOR VEHICLE AND ENGINE POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS; ADVANCED CLEAN CARS II; WAIVER OF PREEMPTION; NOTICE OF DECISION''; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES.”
“Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 71 (Tuesday, April 29, 2025) [Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 71 (Tuesday, April 29, 2025)] [House] [Pages H1693-H1704] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [ www.gpo.gov ] PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 60, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RELATING TO ``GLEN CANYON NATIONAL RECREATION AREA: MOTOR VEHICLES''; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 78, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RELATING TO ``ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS; ENDANGERED SPECIES STATUS FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY-DELTA DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT OF THE LONGFIN SMELT''; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES.”
“Worse, the American people are going to end up on the short end of the stick because it absolutely increases deficits. No one can deny it. Anyone who wants to get in a room and come debate me with a whiteboard, show me the math. At some point, if you are in Congress, pass a math test because the Senate bill doesn't add up. It will destroy this country with more deficits and the inflation tax that is crippling the average American family. Mr. Speaker, I will not vote for the Senate bill.”
“We are crippling the very program they say they want to uphold while we allow money laundering to California, which they brag about openly, to give money to those who are here illegally and to destroy the program with an FMAP rate that is higher than the vulnerable, giving out more money than we even give to Medicare. To my friends on this side of the aisle: When are we going to get serious about spending? The House budget actually does a job of trying to get to budget neutrality, balancing tax policy and spending policy. The Senate sent over a joke, and we are going to capitulate to the Senate, knowing full well that the Senate instructions carry the day. We are going to be sitting there in a reconciliation debate where we are going to end up on the short end of the stick.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding. I appreciate the able job that he has done in ushering through a responsible budget on the House side of the Capitol. Unfortunately, we are here debating an irresponsible budget sent over to us from the Senate. First, before my colleagues on the other side of the aisle applaud me for my opposition to the Senate bill, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge any program that they don't think they can just continue to shovel money out from, despite the fact it has terrible outcomes. Medicaid is debilitating the vulnerable, not helping them. We are shoveling money out to the able-bodied on the back of expansion of ObamaCare.”
“Republicans are responding to an American people who are tired of the previous administration that was allowing illegals to come into our country, kill our citizens, vote in our elections, and undermine our country. We are addressing their concerns, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't want to address it. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the rule, and I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for yielding me time.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for yielding additional time. Mr. Speaker, again, Republicans have brought forward a rule containing a bill that addresses a problem that Democrats have identified as a problem, to say that the parties before the court are the only ones to whom it should apply and allows for a mechanism to achieve nationwide injunctions through a three-judge panel. Mr. Speaker, we are also bringing to the floor a bill that will say that only American citizens should vote in American elections. The controversy--oh, my gosh--the bloodletting, that we might say in the United States House of Representatives that only American citizens should be able to vote in American elections. Yet, that is what we are doing.”
“The Biden administration's solicitor general in 2024 told the Supreme Court: ``A court of equity may grant relief only to the parties before it.'' In 2022, that same solicitor general asked the Supreme Court to address nationwide injunctions. In 2022, Justice Elena Kagan spoke out against the ability of a single judge to stop implementation of a policy across the country. Lo and behold, we are advancing bipartisan work to address a bipartisan problem that Democrats have very clearly identified. The only difference now is that Donald Trump is in the White House instead of Joe Biden. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.”
“{time} 1230 Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the United States Supreme Court said: Stop. You don't get to do that, Mr. District Judge in D.C. If you are going to do this, you have to do this in Texas. Mr. Speaker, that was the whole point. Just today, we had another ruling out of the Supreme Court slapping down yet another activist judge. What are we doing, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) asks. What are we doing as Republicans? We are putting forward language today that would stop rogue district judges from carrying out nationwide injunctions and temporary restraining orders and who are trying to effectively legislate from the bench. Mr. Speaker, we are not alone in that position.”
“This is the same gang that was torturing and driving fear into the hearts of the people in Aurora, Colorado, in the apartment complexes that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge. These are all the same people who are being allowed to vote, the same people that we were elected in November to remove from the country. The President of the United States as Commander in Chief in defending the United States and as the Chief Executive is carrying out the laws to remove dangerous individuals from the United States of America. Then, an activist district judge in the District of Columbia decided that, in his view, he had to step in. He had to step in to try to assert his jurisdiction where it did not belong to try to stop the President of the United States from removing dangerous gang members who are killing Americans.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding. My friend was talking about rigging the rules. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are all too happy to have district judges rig the rules to stop the President of the United States from being able to defend our country. Just last week, within close proximity to my house in Dripping Springs, Texas, 47 individuals who are affiliated with the gang Tren de Aragua were found by ICE. Right down the road in suburban Austin, Texas, 47 people, including 9 children, were found in what was a stash house, moving narcotics through it. This is the same gang that killed Jocelyn Nungaray last summer.”