[Pages H1389-H1399]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 18, DISAPPROVING THE RULE
SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO
``OVERDRAFT LENDING: VERY LARGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS''; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 28, DISAPPROVING THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO ``DEFINING LARGER
PARTICIPANTS OF A MARKET FOR GENERAL-USE DIGITAL CONSUMER PAYMENT
APPLICATIONS''; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1526, NO ROGUE
RULINGS ACT OF 2025; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 22, SAFEGUARD
AMERICAN VOTER ELIGIBILITY ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 282 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 282

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J.
Res. 18) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft
Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''. 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: (1) one
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial
Services or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to
commit.

[[Page H1390]]

Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J.
Res. 28) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Defining Larger
Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer
Payment Applications''. 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: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1526) to amend
title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of
district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or
their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 22) to amend
the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof
of United States citizenship to register an individual to
vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 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 House Administration or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 5. (a) House Resolution 23 and House Resolution 164
are laid on the table.
(b)(1) A motion to discharge a committee from
consideration of a bill or resolution that, by relating in
substance to or dealing with the same subject matter, is
substantially the same as House Resolution 23 shall not be in
order.
(b)(2) A motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from
consideration of a resolution providing a special order of
business for the consideration of a bill or resolution that,
by relating in substance to or dealing with the same subject
matter, is substantially the same as House Resolution 23
shall not be in order.
(c) A motion to discharge on the Calendar of Motions to
Discharge Committees that is rendered out of order pursuant
to subsection (b) shall be stricken from that calendar.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, 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 consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported out a
rule providing for consideration of four measures: S.J. Res. 18,
disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Customer Financial
Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial
Institutions''; S.J. Res. 28, disapproving the rule submitted by the
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Defining Larger
Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment
Applications''; H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025; and H.R.
22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.
House Resolution 282 provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 18 and
S.J. Res. 28, both under closed rules, with 1 hour of general debate
each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective
designees and provides each one a motion to commit.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1526. This is the
act relating to the U.S. District Court's issuing nationwide
injunctions, and that is to be considered under a closed rule. The rule
provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or
their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 22, the Safeguard
America Voter Eligibility Act under a closed rule. The rule provides
for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House
Administration or their respective designees and provides one motion to
recommit.
Finally, the rule provides that House Resolution 23 and House
Resolution 164 are laid on the table.
Mr. Speaker, this rule deals with several issues. The underlying
legislation included is essential. One of the bills included in this
rule is H.R. 1526 led by the Representative from California (Mr. Issa).
This bill limits the ability of U.S. District Court judges from
issuing nationwide injunctions. I would like to be clear. This bill
does not prohibit nationwide injunctions, Mr. Speaker. It merely
establishes a mechanism to issue nationwide injunctions under
appropriate circumstances.
Under the bill, if two separate States from two separate U.S.
judicial circuits are reviewing the same case, a panel of three
randomly chosen judges would be convened to determine whether issuing a
nationwide injunction is appropriate action. These injunctions would
then have the ability to be appealed directly to the United States
Supreme Court.
I believe that no one district court judge in the United States
anywhere, whether it be the Western District of Virginia, the Northern
District of West Virginia, one of the districts in California, or
anywhere else in the country, should have the ability to make
nationwide decisions as a district court judge.
This bill would prevent forum shopping and somewhat restore checks
and balances to our judicial system in the country by providing that we
have a randomly selected three-judge panel.
Also included in this rule is H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter
Eligibility Act, or the SAVE Act, championed by the Representative from
Texas (Mr. Roy). The bill prohibits noncitizens from voting. Let me get
that through. There has been some confusion. It prohibits noncitizens
from voting.
It does so by requiring States to obtain proof of citizenship when
registering individuals to vote in Federal elections. Even though most
States prohibit noncitizens from voting in their elections, these
noncitizens are still registered to vote in some States and in some
cities around the country.

{time} 1230

Also noncitizens sometimes get registered by mistake. I am not saying
this happens by design, but it happens by mistake, and it largely
happens due to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 known as the
Motor Voter Act. This requires every person applying for a driver's
license with their State's Department of Motor Vehicles to receive a
voter registration application. Various States and their Departments of
Motor Vehicles don't generally check citizenship status before giving
out the voter registration application. Some do, and hopefully this
legislation will encourage more to do so.
During the last election cycle, we even saw that some Federal
agencies were instructed to hand out registration forms without the
ability to discern whether the person receiving the form is a citizen
or not. So the noncitizen shows up at a government office, and they are
given a form. They fill it out. I am not saying they are doing it for
ill purposes, Mr. Speaker, but they fill it out. They are given the
form, and then they fill it out. As a result, they end up showing up on
some voter rolls, and there is the potential that they may vote
improperly in one of our Federal elections.
Last Congress, then-West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner
testified before a House Administration

[[Page H1391]]

Committee hearing to discuss his efforts to protect West Virginia
elections. His State has removed 400,000 names from voter registration
rolls and implemented voter ID requirements.
This bill attempts to fix the various loopholes and ensure that only
eligible United States citizens are voting in our country's Federal
elections. Now, Mr. Speaker, I keep saying Federal elections. If a
local government wants to have folks who are not citizens voting, then
that is their right. It is the same thing with the various States. It
can happen out there if that is what they want, but in the Federal
elections, that is where Congress gets into the act.
Also, this rule includes two resolutions of disapproval that both
passed the Senate. S.J. Res. 18 nullifies the rule finalized by the
Biden administration in December of 2024, that would be roughly 4
months ago, that attempts to cap overdraft fees.
Overdraft fees are a necessary evil that I believe in most cases
actually help the consumer. Now, I understand nobody wants to pay it,
but transparency is certainly helpful for consumers on an issue like
this, and I am not sure these caps are the way to go.
Traditionally, things like overdraft fees are regulated by State
regulators. It is unclear whether the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, the CFPB, can do this rulemaking under its cited authority in
the Truth in Lending Act.
I have serious concerns that if this rule goes into effect that it
can potentially bring about a criminal charge and even perhaps criminal
punishment. I don't think the CFPB looked at all the criminal laws of
the States, but having practiced for many years in the criminal courts
of the Commonwealth of Virginia and having discussed it with the
patrons of the bill, the same is fairly much true in the State of
Kentucky.
Mr. Speaker, if you use a draft or a check, and I know not a lot of
people do that, but in the rural area I represent, they are still used
frequently particularly by my senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, if you use
a draft or a check to pay a merchant for something and that check comes
back from the bank marked insufficient funds, then under Virginia law,
you have created a presumption that the individual is attempting to
defraud the merchant. That entitles, when the check is returned, the
merchant to charge up to $50 for a returned check fee and to seek
criminal penalties. If the check is not made good then they can seek
criminal penalties which carry with it up to 12 months in jail for most
checks and up to a $2,500 fine. That is certainly a whole lot more than
the average fee for insufficient funds currently that are being charged
by financial institutions, banks, and credit unions of about $35.
Further, Mr. Speaker, if a criminal charge is brought, then you may
have the cost of an attorney, and you have to spend a day in court
trying to work it out. If you pay it off after the charge is brought
but before going to court, then you still have to pay all of the court
costs associated with the charge being brought.
This is a significant problem that I don't think CFPB thought about
when they were instituting this rule because if the banks and credit
unions only allow a $5 fee, many of them will discontinue the use of
this service. They won't allow you to sign up for it any longer, Mr.
Speaker, and you could face potential criminal penalties.
Mr. Speaker, you can have the overdraft protection fee and pay about
$35 or a $50 merchant fee and potential criminal charges. I think this
is one that really does need to go away. I am surprised that my
Democratic colleagues aren't supporting this, but they have other
reasons.
S.J. Res. 28 nullifies another Biden administration rule that was
finalized in December of 2024 as well that would create burdensome
regulatory requirements for certain non-bank digital payments and
digital wallet companies. This rule expands CFPB's regulatory power and
was another attempt by the Biden administration to rush a rule out of
the door for the CFPB after President Trump had been elected but before
the new administration had the ability to have any input or
consultation on how to carry out a public rulemaking process.
I am concerned this will cut down on people's use of innovative money
transfer apps.
All four of these legislative items are steps in the right direction
to cut down on red tape, ensure fair elections, and restore the system
of checks and balances in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the rule to allow the House to debate
the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there is an awful lot of stuff in this rule before us.
However, let's be clear about one thing that is happening with this
rule today, and that is Republican leadership is trying to overturn the
democratic process of majority rule.
Mr. Speaker, 218 Members of this House, a majority of us, signed a
petition from Congresswoman Luna, who is a Republican, allowing new
moms and dads to vote remotely in Congress. When 218 of us sign a
petition, the House rules say it can be brought up for a vote. However,
a backdoor provision slipped into this rule is being used to shut down
that process. This is an unprecedented step. Literally, it has never
been done before in the history of the House--never.
Mr. Speaker, if you signed Representative Luna's discharge petition,
if you agree it deserves a vote, and if you agree that a majority of
the House should have the ability to bring up legislation through the
discharge process, then you have to vote ``no'' on this rule. It is
that simple.
Let's go back to the drawing board. Drop this provision.
By the way, this isn't remote voting for everyone. It is very simply
about giving new parents the option to vote remotely if they so choose.
That is it. That is what the Republican leadership is killing.
When we get to the actual bills Republicans are advancing here, Mr.
Speaker, who wrote these Republican bills? A Wall Street lobbyist?
One of them is literally about letting big banks raise their fees.
Who the hell asked for that, the CEO of Goldman Sachs?
People are getting screwed by big banks, by the Bank of America, by
Morgan Stanley, and by Wells Fargo. This is about whose side you are
on.
At least Republicans are up front about it. They want to help Wall
Street. Democrats fought to make sure that overdraft fees are capped at
$5, and these guys come down here with a straight face telling America
what? That letting banks raise fees is a good thing.
I mean, Republican math is that higher fees are good for you, Mr.
Speaker. Really? Somehow we all should want to pay more fees to big
banks? Is this a joke? Is this a bad joke?
This next measure that they have in this rule lets Big Tech off the
hook when people get ripped off. Did Elon Musk write this one?
These guys are coming down here with a straight face and telling us
that Big Tech needs less regulation and that they need less oversight.
Is this an April Fools' Day joke?
Here is the contrast: Democrats actually fought to make sure Big Tech
is held accountable when things go wrong on Apple Pay, Cash App, or
Zelle and when people are hacked, scammed, or defrauded.
What do Republicans want to do? They want to let Big Tech off the
hook. If you lose money, too bad, Mr. Speaker. If your data gets sold,
too bad. Whose side are Republicans on?
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is not yours.
Maybe for April Fools' Day they could really change things up and
actually stand up for working people. There is a crazy idea.
We have another bill to block nationwide injunctions when the
government breaks the law. Here is a better idea: Why don't Republicans
call up Donald Trump and tell him to stop breaking the law?
What an idea. Of course, it is a day that ends in Y, so Republicans
are bringing to the floor a bill to take away peoples' voting rights.
Get this, Mr. Speaker, if you are a woman who changed her name after
marriage, you will now need a certified birth certificate. However, if
your

[[Page H1392]]

name is different than on that birth certificate, then you are going to
have to come up with a whole bunch more documentation. Some of it will
be costly.
Only Republicans would think voter disenfranchisement is somehow a
good idea. This is all about making it more difficult for American
citizens to vote. That is the real fraud. Donald Trump actually had a
commission on voter fraud, and he disbanded it because he couldn't find
any.
Republicans are defrauding American voters by making it more
difficult to register. This stuff is right out of the authoritarian
playbook straight from China, Russia, or Iran.
Republicans are acting like they are above the law. They are putting
the rich and powerful first, undermining an independent judiciary, and
undermining the right to vote. This is the road to authoritarianism,
Mr. Speaker. Republicans are putting us in the fast lane to a
dictatorship, and you can be damn sure that I am not going to be silent
and that people on this side are not going to be silent. I am going to
fight against these bills. I am going to fight to protect and uphold
our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues here, both Democrats and
Republicans, to vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Luna).
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. As many of
you might know, for over 2 years now I have been championing the cause
to allow new female Members of Congress the right to vote. Some of the
American people might be surprised that if you are a female Member and
you have a child, that you can't vote. This means you can't execute
your constitutional authority.
For almost 2 years now in this cause I have met with leadership. I
have exhausted all tools in my legislative toolkit to be able to bring
this to the floor. As I was met with much opposition, I finally used
the last tool that I had at my disposal which was something known as a
discharge petition where I collected 218 signatures and expanded the
ability to vote while recovering from childbirth not just to mothers
but also to young fathers in our governing body.
Now leadership, because of the fact they don't like the fact that I
was successful at this, is trying to change the rules, but I want to
talk about how fundamentally dangerous this rule change is.

As of right now, they slipped language into this rule, and I will get
to what they attached the rule to in a second, that would permanently
kill any ability for new Members of Congress to be able to bring this
up and allow those Members who just had a child to be able to vote.
That is dangerous because of the fact that, A, not only if I argue this
from the Republican standpoint that we have a very slim majority, but
also to think about the message that that sends, allowing female
Members to be able to vote.
In addition to that, I would also like to add that for a while we
have had the majority and we have had the ability to bring legislation
to the floor on election integrity and also to call out rogue judges,
and yet they chose at this point in time to tie this discharge petition
killer to this rule that would also permanently paint me and the
Members supporting it, and I would like to also share that I am one of
the most conservative Members of this body, I would like to hold up my
voting record to anyone else as not just being anti-election integrity
but also enabling a position that I don't typically agree with.
That in itself, I would say, in this entire process has been the most
disappointing especially from among my party. I would also ask my
colleagues to remember that up until 1916, female representation was
not a common thing in Washington, D.C.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. LUNA. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to give this a
fair shot. Vote ``no'' against the rule and allow this to come to the
floor so that we can address it for the first time, I would say, in
congressional history and do the right thing. If we don't do the right
thing now, it will never be done.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I respect the
gentlewoman from Florida for her courage and for standing up on behalf
of doing the right thing. I wish more people in this Chamber would do
that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado
(Ms. Pettersen), who is the author of the parental proxy resolution
that is trying to be killed by today's rule. She is a new mom herself.
Ms. PETTERSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule which
restricts moms and dads from doing their jobs after welcoming a new
child. Like so many of our colleagues, it is one of my greatest honors
to be a mom. I have two little boys, a son named Davis who is 5, and my
little guy here, Sam, who is now 9 weeks old.
It is also one of my greatest honors to have been elected by my
constituents to represent them in Congress. I can tell you, Mr.
Speaker, after being a mom here and being only the 13th voting Member
to have ever given birth while serving in Congress, I can tell you we
have a long ways to go to make this place accessible for young families
like mine.

{time} 1245

When I was pregnant, I couldn't fly toward the end of my due date
because it was unsafe for Sam, and I was unable to board a plane. I was
unable to actually have my vote represented here and my constituents
represented.
After giving birth, I was faced with an impossible decision. Sam was
4 weeks old. For all the parents here, we know that when we have
newborns, that is when they are the most vulnerable in their lives. It
is when they need 24/7 care, when taking them even to a grocery store
is scary because you are worried about exposure to germs and them
getting sick, let alone taking them to an airport, on a plane, and
coming across the country to make sure that you are able to vote and
represent your constituents.
I was terrified that no matter what choice I made, I would have deep
regrets for the consequences. So, Sam and I made the trip out, and this
is our third time now coming to the floor, for this vote.
I thank all the people who have stood by us. I thank Representative
Luna for being such a champion on this issue.
While Sam is the best baby, I apologize for the noises here.
I thank Representative Luna for being such a champion on this issue,
alongside the rest of my colleagues who have led this charge and
supported us in our efforts to pass this resolution.
When I hear from Members about their stories, whether they are a mom
or a dad doing this job, having a newborn who is in the NICU, and
having to make the choice whether or not to leave their child or come
here to vote, it is unfathomable that, in 2025, we have not modernized
Congress to address these very unique challenges that Members face,
these life events, where our voices should still be heard.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Colorado.
Ms. PETTERSEN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, thank you for signing our
discharge petition. We are asking you to continue to stand with us
because no mom or dad should be in the position that I was in and so
many parents have found themselves in.
It is antiwoman. It is antifamily. We need to come together to make
sure that we kill this rule and have the opportunity to pass this
resolution to make sure that new parents have the ability to continue
to represent their constituents.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman apologized for the noises
on the floor. I love the noises and greatly appreciate having babies
around.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the
gentleman from Virginia in supporting this important rule.
The rule would ensure the debate of important, commonsense
legislation.

[[Page H1393]]

This includes additional CRAs to protect consumer choice and the
ability of American businesses to continue to innovate.
It also provides for the consideration of the SAVE Act, legislation
that fixes a broken provision of law by closing the loopholes that
allow noncitizen voter registration and to enhance election security,
minimizes the risk of foreign interference in U.S. elections, and
restores Americans' confidence in U.S. elections.
It also includes important legislation by Mr. Issa to provide for a
commonsense approach in limiting the exponential spread of nationwide
injunctions. These nationwide injunctions, when combined with forum
shopping by activists, are circumventing the will of the public by
turning courts into public policy determinants, completely upending our
constitutional framework.
I would like to briefly echo my earlier remarks at the Rules
Committee this morning.
I am proud to support the provision in the rule that safeguards this
Chamber from a take-it-or-leave-it, nonamenable approach to authorize
proxy voting.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, ``congress'' is defined
as the act of ``coming together and meeting.'' I have never voted by
proxy because I believe it undermines the fabric of that sacred act of
convening.
I know there is a laptop class in America that seems to operate
increasingly in a virtual space, but that is simply not a fact of life
for most American workers, and I believe Congress should live by that
standard.
Our Nation's construction workers can't build by proxy. Our Nation's
police can't keep the streets safe by proxy. Teachers can't educate our
students through the act of proxy. Doctors and nurses cannot treat the
sick by proxy.
Let's not forget how dependent we were on service workers and
delivery employees to get us the goods we needed during COVID. Where
would we have been if they decided to ``proxy'' their responsibilities?
I understand that some of my colleagues are pinning their hopes on
the fact that things will go according to plan, that proxy voting can
be limited to select classes, and that those in authority can be
trusted to enforce the rules. However, in the course of human events,
things rarely ever go according to plan.
This isn't theoretical. The Democrats implemented proxy voting during
COVID, and it was a disaster. We had one Member who was submitting his
proxy letter so he could moonlight a second job.
We simply cannot throw this important decision to chance. It will
take only slight reconfiguration of the deck chairs in this body to put
Democrats back in charge and put us on a path to proxy voting without
limitation.
Put simply, Members of Congress need to show up for work. I support
this rule and urge my colleagues to support it on the floor.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
After listening to the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules
Committee, my head is about to explode.
She talked about how disastrous it was when we had proxy voting
during COVID. It was so disastrous that 162 Republicans actually voted
by proxy.

She talked about how somehow it was unconstitutional, so
unconstitutional that the current Speaker of the House, on multiple
occasions, voted by proxy 39 different times.
She talks about people needing to show up to work. Well, people did
show up to work and did participate in representing their constituents
when we had proxy voting.
She doesn't seem to be that upset over the fact that Donald Trump
conducts most of his business from the golf course in Mar-a-Lago. She
doesn't seem to be very upset over the fact that the FBI Director, Kash
Patel, is asking to work remotely from Las Vegas. She didn't seem that
upset that there were people on the Rules Committee who used proxy
voting to go to a CPAC convention to basically listen to political
rhetoric from people on the extreme rightwing.
The bottom line is, Republicans love to talk about family values, but
when given the chance to really support families, they turn their
backs.
She talks about looking in Webster's dictionary, about the definition
of ``congress.'' While she is at it, she should look up the definition
of ``representation.'' There is nothing that says you shouldn't be able
to represent your constituents because you just had a new baby.
The rule that we are considering right now is unprecedented because
never in the history of the House has the Rules Committee tried to
outright kill a discharge petition that was already signed by a
majority of the House--never. This is precedent-setting.
Let me be clear: Discharge petitions are not a tool of the minority.
That is true no matter how many times Republican leadership wants to
say so.
In the past 30 years, before this month, a grand total of four
discharge petitions have been sent by a majority of this House. Guess
who introduced every single one of those four bills? Republican Members
of a Republican majority. How did a majority of Republicans vote on
those bills? They voted in support.
This isn't some Democratic tool that we use to make the other side
take votes. This is a vital tool that has allowed Republicans with
commonsense, bipartisan ideas to actually bring them forward against
the opposition of their leadership.
By the way, even if you think this is a tool of the minority, once
you set this precedent, that is it. Republicans are a few seats away
from losing control of this Chamber. You might see this debate a lot
differently in hindsight. If you want to protect your rights as Members
of Congress, you should vote ``no'' here. You should especially vote
``no'' if you support the idea that new moms and dads should be allowed
to vote remotely while taking care of a newborn.
Members worked across the aisle to draft a compromise version of
remote voting for new parents. A bipartisan majority of this House
signed a petition to bring this to the floor. Congresswoman Luna
followed the rules, followed the rules that you set, the same rules
that were in place when I was chair of this committee, the same basic
rules that have been in place for a hundred years.
A majority of this Congress supports the Luna-Pettersen rule to allow
new parents to vote remotely because it is common sense and because
this is 2025, not 1925.
Members who stand with new parents and young families, Members who
recognize we live in a modern world and don't show up to work with a
horse and buggy, Members who believe in the democratic process, things
like majority rule--what a radical idea--must defeat this antifamily,
antidemocratic power grab of a resolution.
If you signed this discharge petition, you need to vote ``no'' on
this rule. If you think it is important for individual Members to have
any ability to move commonsense, bipartisan ideas forward, you need to
vote ``no'' on this rule. A ``no'' vote is the only vote that lets that
happen.
Congresswoman Luna convinced a majority in this House to support her
idea. She deserves to get an up-or-down vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are rigging the system
to silence your vote and silence your power.
If you are a woman, a rural voter, an Active-Duty military member, or
a Tribal member, the SAVE Act will cost you more time, more money, and
maybe your right to vote, period.
Under the SAVE Act, if your birth certificate does not match your
voter registration, you will have to pay to get a passport or jump
through even more hoops to register to vote.
All of you married women out there, that is you.
The SAVE Act also requires you to show up in person to present your
documents. Military members overseas can't do that, and rural voters
may have to drive 2 hours if you are in Representative Ciscomani's
district and maybe more in Republican rural districts. That is a lot of
gas money and lots of work that you have lost.
Republicans rejected my amendment to fix those two problems, but they
don't like an easy fix. No, everything

[[Page H1394]]

under Trump and Republicans is getting more expensive, even the right
to vote.
This rule also blocks the House from voting on Representative Luna's
bipartisan discharge petition signed by a majority of the House,
including Republicans, to allow new parents to vote by proxy.
Speaker Johnson voted by proxy 39 times, and he didn't have a
newborn. Earlier this year, they let a Republican go on a Hollywood
comedy show and vote by proxy, but they won't let a pregnant colleague
who cannot safely travel vote by proxy. Republicans are undermining
family values yet again.
I hope my Republican colleagues who signed the discharge petition
continue to have the courage to vote against this rule. You should not
be silenced.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise for a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state the inquiry.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, are there any points of order that
properly lie against this resolution we are currently debating?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman inquiring about the rule
which he is managing?
Mr. GRIFFITH. That is correct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not provide an advisory
opinion.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will say, the reason I raise that issue is because what we have in
this rule is really just a different form of the classic motion to lay
on the table or to postpone indefinitely.

{time} 1300

Mr. Speaker, I understand that you have to go back to Jefferson's
Manual and old practices to figure that out. Yet, that is, in essence,
what this rule does in relationship to the resolutions that have been
discussed being laid on the table and not being brought up.
Mr. Speaker, I will talk about proxies for a minute, if I might. I
have always been opposed to proxy voting. I would say to my colleagues,
both on the other side of the aisle and my side of the aisle, if I were
to ever break that feeling that it is not the right way to run this
body, this might be the one that would tempt me. Yet, we can't.
Even though we are looking now at a certain class that we are all
sympathetic to, moms and babies and new dads, there are already
discussions underway for expanding that. Now that this has started to
be discussed, there are all kinds of discussions around Capitol Hill
about other things that should be granted the ability to vote by proxy.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if Members agree with me that
Representatives shouldn't vote by proxy, this is an appropriate
technique under the rules of this House to allow us to, in essence, lay
the issue of voting by proxy on the table.
I have heard people say: These folks followed the rules.
This is also a component of the rules, and oftentimes there is a
clash of the rules.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to quit making it sound like it is
some kind of a nefarious thing. I don't agree with voting by proxy. I
didn't vote by proxy when it was allowed. I didn't vote for anybody
else by proxy when it was allowed. I have always been opposed to it. I
think it is bad for the Republic.
In the long term, individuals may have differences of opinion.
Individuals may disagree. Individuals may have circumstances where they
that cry out to us to say: Shouldn't we allow it in this case?
Yet, I think it is bad for the Republic to go down that path. Just
because others have done it and they did it when it was legal or proper
under the rules and because some have had inappropriate behavior and
done it when it wasn't supposed to be done, it does not mean that we
should change the ruling or the rules of this House to allow it.
I was sitting here thinking. We have all kinds of rules, rules of the
road, et cetera. Just because not everybody stops at a stop sign or not
everybody stops at a red light doesn't mean that we should suddenly
change the law and say people don't have to stop. That is the
circumstance that I think that we are in currently.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I don't blame the Speaker for not being able to answer
the question of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith). I have been
on the Rules Committee for a long time, and I, quite frankly, don't
know what the hell he is talking about.
Mr. Speaker, none of us are saying that the rules can't be changed
here. We are just saying they shouldn't be. In the House of
Representatives, I don't know, but I thought the majority rules. I
thought that was kind of an important standard that we all followed
around here, but apparently not.
Apparently, according to my Republican colleagues who are now in
charge, it is now the minority that should rule, that a minority of
opinion who doesn't want to see things come to the floor can just block
it and not even give people an opportunity to vote up or down.
I think this is a very dangerous precedent, and I think the majority
is going to regret going down this road. Again, I hope that there are
courageous people on the Republican side who will stand with
Representative Luna and all of us and vote ``no'' on the previous
question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Gomez).
Mr. GOMEZ. Mr. Speaker, I think Speaker Johnson doesn't get it.
First, what the Speaker is trying to do regarding this rule is to
kill a process that has been in place for a very, very long time and
really undermine the majority will of this body. The American people
want us to work together. When we finally do work in a bipartisan way,
the Speaker tries to use a procedural move to undo that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Dads Caucus in support of
Representative Luna's and Representative Pettersen's proxy voting bill
that will allow new parents to spend a limited time, 12 weeks, with a
newborn child. That is all we are asking.
The reason is it is not just about those new parents, but it is also
about making a Congress that is representative of the people in this
country, men and women who are starting a family and who are taking
care of a newborn child, those who are struggling to make ends meet,
those who are struggling to figure out how to take care of this new
person that is living among us and to make sure that they have a
healthy start in life. That is what this is about.
Mr. Speaker, when we make this body more representative and make it
easier for people to serve, all of a sudden, we will make decisions
that are more representative of our country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for a rejection and a ``no'' vote on the
rule because this is about a democracy that truly represents working
men and women and their kids.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Virginia (Mr. Griffith)
for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would note for the American people that the Republican
majority is bringing before the body two important measures this week.
The first measure is to ensure the integrity of our elections, to
ensure that only American citizens can vote in American elections, a
fairly commonsense principle, which enjoys 80 percent-plus approval
among the American people, that would ensure in a straightforward way
that noncitizens may not vote in our elections. It is that simple.

The second measure we are bringing forward is a piece of legislation
that we are actively debating right now in a committee that I am co-
chairing, the Committee on the Judiciary, and I will go back to that
committee forthwith, in which we are having witnesses before the
Committee on the Judiciary discussing the extent to which we have
judges that are taking unilateral action under what are called
temporary restraining orders, or injunctions, to thwart the efforts of
the administration's actions as a direct result of the election in
November to carry out the agenda for which the President was elected.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan problem that has been something

[[Page H1395]]

where you have judges that will act unilaterally as a single-district
judge, and the question is: What do we do about it?
We have had Democrats who have said that we should change it. We have
had Republicans who have said that we should change it. We are trying
to change it. We are trying to say that a judge can take action on the
parties before them, but nothing more, and then have that go up through
another procedure, and then allow an appellate panel or a three-judge
panel or the Supreme Court to fast track it, so if they decide there
should be an injunction, there can be.
Mr. Speaker, let me put it in plain speak for the American people. We
are putting measures on the floor to ensure that only American citizens
vote in American elections and to ensure that judges don't make the
policy for America but the elected leaders do, whether it is the
executive branch, President, or the Members of Congress, and that there
be a process to ensure that the Constitution, the laws of the land, are
being protected.
That is what the majority in this body is putting forward. We can
listen all day long about what we are hearing today regarding proxy
voting. The American people who I know and represent and talk to expect
us to show up. Right now, across this country, Americans are showing up
to work. They are going in, and they are doing their plumbing work.
There are electricians showing up to work. There are builders who are
standing out in the sun. They are picking crops. They are working hard.
They don't get to take a pass. They don't get to not show up. Yet, we
were elected to represent the 750,000-odd Americans each. We were
elected under the Constitution of the United States, and we are
supposed to show up in Congress; that is what it means. We are supposed
to be here. It is why the institution exists. It is why this floor
exists.
Mr. Speaker, there have been countless reasons why there would be
cause for us to want to allow Members to have some sort of flexibility,
such as people who are sick, or our friend, Steve Scalise, who was
shot. He was shot, and he didn't ask for any special dispensation. He
fought cancer, is still fighting cancer, and as majority leader is
standing here on this floor every day doing the job.
New dads. I am a dad. My daughter and my son ask me to show up to
things. I missed my son's 4-H presentation last week. I missed my
daughter's 4-H event this last week. I have missed countless family
engagements.
My wife carries the burden of making sure that our family can
function back home in Texas, but I signed up for the job. That is what
I did. I signed up for the job.
When Members let this happen, it will not just happen for mothers or
fathers. It will be for everybody, and then we will have proxy voting
where you will have pressures brought to bear that will fundamentally
change this institution.
No, we should not allow this to occur. No, we shouldn't have a
discharge petition brought to the floor, which does violence to the
Constitution, does violence to the body, and does it with no ability to
amend it. The way the rule is drafted, there would be no amendments and
no ability to debate it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Virginia (Mr.
Griffith) for yielding additional time.
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing on the floor today is right and proper
under our rules. It is to say that we should have a full-throated
debate on something that would fundamentally change the people's House,
nothing more, nothing less. We should do that.
This is something that has been debatable. It was debated by the
Founders. It was debated by them and rejected. It was debated and
rejected in the Articles of Confederation. It was debated and rejected
in the Constitution. We are now staring at the result of having set
aside tradition and precedent by embracing proxy voting during COVID.
It is trying to be expanded beyond that. We should not do that.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, responding to the gentleman who just spoke, just because
the gentleman yells doesn't make his vote count more. It certainly
doesn't make him right.
Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump literally works from a golf course, and my
friends on the other side of the aisle don't say anything about it.
Yet, God forbid a pregnant mother be able to have her baby in the
safety of her home and in her community and she votes by proxy.
Somehow, the Republic will fall? Give me a break.
What the hell is wrong with the majority? This is ridiculous. This is
ridiculous. This is coming from a group of people over there, many of
whom voted by proxy during COVID, some of them multiple times. I don't
have any patience for this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Johnson).
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to the Republicans' voter
suppression act. This bill is not about election integrity. This is not
about ensuring that only citizens vote. This is about making it
impossible for people and new voters to vote.
Mr. Speaker, this has played out in Texas and other jurisdictions
across the country. Yet, in 2021, Texas has led the Nation in voter
suppression, rejecting nearly 13 percent of mail-in ballots. Texas
rejected nearly 13 percent of ballots cast by rightful citizens of this
country, people who are being disfranchised for exercising their right
to vote.
The Republicans are really using this patriotic chest-beating moment
of voting in an attempt to make it difficult for people of color, for
seniors, for veterans, for persons with disabilities to be able to go
and cast their vote.
I filed three amendments to make this bill better that were all
rejected by the Republicans, one of which would have made it possible
to provide documentation of citizenship through online means, to
register online. There are millions of people in this country who
cannot physically get to a polling place. There are men and women in
our service branches who are stationed abroad who cannot physically get
back to their polling place in their jurisdiction to register to vote.
We are basically telling these citizens of this country that their
votes don't count. We don't care if they can vote. We don't care how
hard it is, and we are going to make it impossible for them to vote.
Republicans categorically rejected that amendment.
Mr. Speaker, what about the accountability for making sure that
election officials don't screw up and tell a citizen of this country
that they don't get to vote? Where is the right to cure? I filed an
amendment that would have said that, if citizens were wrongfully denied
the right to vote, they would have 24 hours to get a hearing to have a
judge take a look at it to prove that the election clerk got it wrong
and that they are an American citizen and deserve to be able to cast
their ballot.
Republicans categorically rejected that. It is an atrocity on the
American public, and it is an atrocity for citizens who are trying to
duly cast their vote.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 5 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will
offer an amendment to the rule to make in order Representative Dexter's
amendment to the SAVE Act, which prevents the bill from taking effect
within a State unless that State certifies that the implementation of
the bill would not lead to disenfranchisement of eligible married women
voters.
I ask for unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into
the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to
the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.

[[Page H1396]]

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Dexter), the sponsor of this legislation, to discuss our
proposal.

{time} 1315

Ms. DEXTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding and for
his actions today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on one of my eight amendments to
the SAVE Act, which will be offered as the previous question today.
Let me be clear: The SAVE Act is an antiwoman, voter suppression
bill. Under the guise of election integrity, the SAVE Act would
penalize millions of women just for taking their spouse's name,
requiring them to present additional documentation that many women
don't have or don't have the resources to obtain to exercise their
constitutional right to vote.
My amendment would prevent this bill from being implemented unless we
get certification that it would not bar a single married woman in this
country who is eligible to vote from the ballot box.
If this amendment fails, we are putting 70 million American women at
risk of disenfranchisement. Seventy million is one in four voters in
this country. This burden will fall hardest on women already forced to
navigate broken systems with fewer resources and less time: working
mothers, caregivers, women juggling jobs and families.
I cannot believe that in the year 2025, I have to stand here on the
House floor of the United States to defend a woman's right to vote, but
I will. I will continue to stand here every single day if that is what
it takes because this isn't theoretical. This is personal.
It is for the mom in Gresham who can't take unpaid time off to track
down new documents. It is for the woman in Hood River whose name no
longer matches her birth certificate after marriage and who lacks the
$160 it costs to get a passport. Are we really going to tell her she
doesn't have a right to vote?
I ask my Republican colleagues to show courage in this moment for
your mothers, your daughters, and every woman in your life that you
love. Please join your Democratic colleagues in defeating the previous
question so that we can vote on my commonsense amendment.
American women cannot afford to go back.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I rise in full support of this
rule. As I told my good friends in the Rules Committee today, you are
not going to lecture me on compassion. You are not going to lecture me
on being kind to the poor and the forgotten.
You are the party who let 15 million illegals in this country,
wantonly and deliberately. You are the party who defended a President
who wasn't mentally competent.
One of the ladies mentioned that Donald Trump voted from a golf
course. Donald Trump could read a thank-you note, unlike President
Biden.
Donald Trump had 77 million people who wanted to reverse the course
that this country was on for the last 4 years. To hear you all talk all
of a sudden about disenfranchisement for females, you are always
playing the victim card. Seventy-seven million people rejected that.
Now, on the proxy voting, every one of our friends in the back
listening had to show up here. Every one of them had to physically come
here. I am in the construction business. Do you think the electrician
could vote by proxy to get the house wired? Do you think the dentist
could vote by proxy to get the teeth fixed and fillings filled?
It is a joke. With all the problems this country has, here we are,
arguing over proxy voting.
You brought up the Speaker voting by proxy. I voted by proxy. Speaker
Pelosi put it in order a few times, and no one agrees with this.
The hardworking Americans go to work. When we sign up for this job,
as has been said, we agree to come to this Chamber, 435 of us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. NORMAN. If you want to get into Members of your own party who
voted coming off boats and just basically took a vacation, it ends
today.
That is why I fully support this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair and to not refer to the occupants of the gallery.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I don't even know what the hell he is
talking about.
Let me just say this: I never voted by proxy. I helped establish
those rules during COVID, but I never did because I followed the rules.
The gentleman voted 63 times by proxy, including one time going to a
rightwing Republican political convention. That was not following the
rules. So much for being unconstitutional.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Moskowitz).
Mr. MOSKOWITZ. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker is a Member of this body.
There are 435 of us, and the petition process exists so that the other
434 of us have a little bit of power so that if there is an idea that
we want to bring to the Chamber, one person can't stop it.
The petition process is about us. It is about the Members, but people
are feeling all sorts of kingly these days in D.C. It has been reported
that leadership is bribing Members to vote ``no'' so they can have
their bills moved and get spots on committees.
I don't understand. The Freedom Caucus just owns you guys. They just
own the Republicans. The last time they took you hostage, they removed
a Speaker.
Literally, the Freedom Caucus could teach a clinic on Speaker hostage
taking. If you don't like the bill, vote against it. Is the Freedom
Caucus the only one with power? Is Chip Roy the only one who sits in
these seats with power?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman from Florida.

Point of Order

Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. GRIFFITH. I believe the gentleman is referencing a Member by
name, and I don't believe that is proper.
Mr. MOSKOWITZ. The Representative from Texas, Mr. Speaker. Is that
all right?
Mr. GRIFFITH. There you go.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman withdraw his point of
order?
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.
Mr. MOSKOWITZ. I will refer to him as Representative of Texas. I
didn't realize the snowflake thing was a problem.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know that anyone should lecture us on working.
The American people work harder than us. We are here only 3 days a
week. I mean, you want to talk about working, you guys are not even
showing up for your townhalls, so I don't know that you should be
lecturing us about working.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
comments to the Chair and not to engage in personalities.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am
prepared to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today on the House
floor, Donald Trump's Secretary of Health is announcing that he is
firing over 10,000 healthcare professionals across America. These are
the doctors, practitioners, experts, and scientists who keep us safe.
While we stand here today, Elon Musk is trying to buy an election in
Wisconsin.
While we stand here, Donald Trump is bragging about tariffs across
town while he is saying that he is going to run for President for a
third term, which is unconstitutional.
What are Republicans trying to run on the House floor this week? The
SAVE Act, which would undermine the voting rights of millions of
Americans, and the No Rogue Rulings Act, which

[[Page H1397]]

would undermine the judicial branch and interfere with its rulings. It
is trying to run two CRAs that would revoke administrative rules to
keep banks from ripping off the American people.
Here they are, trying to sneak in a rule today that would take our
power away as Representatives here in the House to ensure that our own
Members can care for their children as new parents.
This is what abuse of power looks like: attacking the judiciary,
attacking our elections, and attacking our democratic institutions.
We will not stand for it because American democracy is on the line.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand
up, have a backbone, do what is right, and vote ``no.''
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am
prepared to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let us not kid ourselves. This isn't just about
overdraft fees, mobile apps, or voter registration requirements. This
is about one political party, the Republican Party, which has made a
deliberate choice to side with the rich and powerful over the people
they were elected to serve.
Time and time again, Republicans have shown us exactly who they are.
They are not interested in lifting up working families. They are
interested in protecting greedy corporations.
They are not interested or worried about making life easier for
everyday people. They are worried about making life easier for the rich
and the powerful.
The Republican vision for America is one where the rules don't apply
to those at the top and the rest of us are left to fend for ourselves.
That is very different from the Democratic vision for America because
Democrats believe real freedom means economic security.
We believe opportunity means being able to pay your bills without
being gouged by Big Bank overdraft fees. We believe consumers should be
protected from fraud.
We believe that working people should come first, not Wall Street,
not Silicon Valley, not MAGA billionaires who think democracy is
optional.
We believe that this Congress ought to embrace the 21st century.
Republicans are using this vote to block Representative Luna from
offering her resolution to allow new moms and dads to vote by proxy in
this Congress. This is a huge change to centuries of precedent. They
are taking power away from a majority, a majority of Members of the
House, by blocking a bipartisan resolution.
Let me be crystal clear: A minority of this Chamber is upending what
a majority in both parties wants.
I get it. Some of you are obsessed with copying authoritarian
regimes, but guess what. We are not in a dictatorship, and Republicans
and Democrats should reject this cowardly change.
The American people are watching. They, quite frankly, don't
understand the rationale that my Republican colleagues put forward
about why new mothers and new fathers have to be here in person while
making comparisons to doctors who are operating on patients.

We are casting votes. We are casting votes.
Representative Pettersen, having just given birth to a new baby,
should be able to represent her constituents from her district in the
safety of her community and in her home.
What the hell is the big deal? Do you think the world is coming to an
end? The people who are complaining the loudest are the ones who abused
proxy voting when we had it during COVID.
By the way, news flash, everybody: There is a Member of the
Republican Party who voted by proxy to do a comedy show on the West
Coast just a few months ago, and they all know about it. There is no
accountability. There is no one holding anybody to account for that,
basically, voter fraud, but they are here on the floor today
complaining about new mothers and new fathers being able to vote by
proxy.
This is absurd. This is absurd. The American people I know are
disgusted by what they are hearing here today. The American people are
watching.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this outrageous,
antidemocratic rule. I ask my Republican colleagues to stand up and
show some courage today because what you are doing today, what the
leadership is doing today, is basically precedent setting.
This will come back and haunt you at some point. Don't ruin these
precedents. Don't ruin these traditions.
Let's build an economy and a democracy that works for everyone. Vote
``no'' on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have failed. I thought I made it very clear that when
I talk about overdraft fees, I am talking about the little guy because
the CFPB's rule doesn't recognize the laws of the States that make it a
crime in some cases to have an overdraft. It makes it so that the
little guy is going to pay more. CFPB didn't take that into
consideration, in my opinion. They didn't understand that.
Yet, my colleague on the other side just talks about somehow
Republicans are only looking out for the big businesses. No. No, this
rule sets up the debate for overturning the CFPB rule and helping the
little guy not face $150 to $750--that is in Virginia; I don't know
about other States--in charges if they have to deal with a criminal
penalty. $50 from the merchant, and they are worrying about a $5 to $35
fee. Yet, they are not paying attention to the real harm. That is it.

{time} 1330

We have heard lots of arguments on all the issues included in this
rule, and so I think it is important that we pass it. I urge everyone
to vote ``yes.''
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 282 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

Strike Sec. 4 and insert the following and redesignate the
subsequent sections accordingly:
Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 22) to amend
the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof
of United States citizenship to register an individual to
vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 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 House Administration or their respective
designees; (2) the amendment specified in section 5 of this
resolution, if offered by Representative Dexter of Oregon or
a designee, which shall be in order without intervention of
any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be
separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question; and (3) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as
follows:
Amend section 8 of the bill to read as follows:

SEC. 8. EFFECTIVE DATE

(a) In General.--Subject to subsection (b), this Act and
the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date
of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to
applications for voter registration which are submitted on or
after such date.
(b) Exception.--This Act and the amendments made by this
Act shall not take effect with respect to a State unless the
State certifies that the implementation of this Act and the
amendments made by this Act will not disenfranchise any
eligible married woman voter.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:

[[Page H1398]]

Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and
The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1491.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215,
nays 213, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 86]

YEAS--215

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Goldman (TX)
Gonzales, Tony
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stauber
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NAYS--213

Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gottheimer
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--3

Barr
Spartz
Stefanik

{time} 1356

Mses. KAMLAGER-DOVE and WILSON of Florida changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 206,
noes 222, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 87]

AYES--206

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Goldman (TX)
Gonzales, Tony
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Langworthy
Latta
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steil
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NOES--222

Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Burchett
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gottheimer
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)

[[Page H1399]]

Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Kiley (CA)
Krishnamoorthi
LaLota
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lawler
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Luna
Lynch
Mackenzie
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Miller (OH)
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Steube
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--3

Barr
Fitzpatrick
Stefanik

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1413

So the resolution was not agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
NO on Roll Call No. 87.

____________________