[Pages H1473-H1480]
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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 294 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res 294

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.
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. House Resolution 293 is hereby adopted.
Sec. 6. House Resolution 164 is laid on the table.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.

{time} 1215

Ms. FOXX. 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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and
produced a rule, House Resolution 294, providing for consideration of
four measures: S.J. Res. 18, disapproving the rule submitted by the
Bureau of Consumer 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 294 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 rank minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective
designees and provides each one motion to commit.

[[Page H1474]]

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1526, the No
Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, 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
American Voter Eligibility Act, 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 House Administration or
their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
Finally, the rule provides that H. Res. 293 is hereby adopted and
provides that House Resolution 164 is laid on the table.
The rule before us today provides Congress with yet another
opportunity to stand for consumer choice and business innovation in our
Nation. It provides an opportunity to defend the integrity of our
elections, and it provides for a historic opportunity to rein in rogue
judges and return public policy decisions to their rightful branches of
government.
H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act,
would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require
proof of U.S. citizenship to register an individual to vote in
elections for Federal office.
The only people who should vote in American elections are American
citizens. There should be no debate or question about that. The SAVE
Act adds additional layers of protection to elections right here in our
own country. It is an opportunity worthy of bipartisan support.
H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, would limit the
authority of district judges to provide sweeping injunctive relief on a
nationwide or exceedingly broad scale.
As of late, we have certainly seen a slew of rulings by rogue judges
that surpass their own constitutional authority. Americans are
rightfully concerned about this very issue.
Let me be clear. This is judicial warfare in the flesh. Without
question, exceeding constitutional mandates as a matter of judicial
philosophy does nothing more than blight justice itself.
S.J. Res. 18, a Congressional Review Act resolution, would overturn a
midnight rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB,
that undercuts the ability of lower-income Americans to access
liquidity.
To put it very simply, this CFPB's rule hurts the very consumers that
it purports to protect.
One of the likely outcomes of this rule being fully implemented would
be low-income Americans being expelled from the financial system
entirely due to lack of overdraft protection. It is time that we add
this midnight rule to the burn pile.
S.J. Res. 28, another Congressional Review Act resolution, would
overturn another CFPB rule that unjustly shackles private-sector
companies that operate within the digital asset marketplace.
This rule is billed as a ``consumer protection'' mechanism, but what
it really does is misclassifies an entire segment of digital products
with the aim of regulating them straight into the ground. The CFPB
overstepped its regulatory authority in its pursuit of subjugating the
American economy in the name of consumer protection. This is another
misguided rule that we must render null and void.
Mr. Speaker, before I reserve, I want to take a moment to recognize
the good faith efforts of Speaker Johnson in helping maintain a strong
family-centric posture here in the people's House.
Leading from the front and building consensus are not always easy
endeavors. All of us understand this to be true. However, when done in
the right ways and for the right reasons, like what the Speaker has
done, we get positive resolutions.
It is obvious that we have a critical mass of Members on what I
consider an existential question for this body and that the related
discharge effort derailed our agenda for a short time. However, we are
back at our post, and our objective right here and now is to move
forward.
At the end of the day, our eyes must remain affixed to our very own
North Star. Our North Star is governance, Mr. Speaker. Deviating from
governing does not serve the American people, nor does it make good on
the mandate they entrusted us with.

The compromise agreement of dead pairing that was formulated and led
by the Speaker and others is grounded in existing precedents,
practices, and, ultimately, common sense.
This is a viable pathway forward that meets two critical imperatives.
It allows the clockwork and business of this body to remain unabated
while extending due deference to our own majority's own governing
principles.
It is not the prerogative of this Republican majority now, nor will
it ever be, to use tools of the minority to secure legislative
victories. Republicans are the ones manning the helm here, and we must
act like it.
In addition, I will add that I firmly believe, as do many others,
that Speaker Johnson's work in addressing the concerns raised last week
and taking sizable steps to further intertwine rock-solid family values
into the fabric of this House are very commendable.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
I have to ask, Mr. Speaker: What the hell is the Republican majority
doing?
I mean, last week, these guys canceled Congress and went home all
because they don't want new moms or dads to be able to vote. So much
for being the party of family values.
The gentlewoman just said that the Speaker is very much in support of
family values, yet he has a problem with allowing new moms and dads to
be able to vote by proxy. He seems to have no problem with Republican
Members flying to the West Coast, filming comedy shows in Hollywood,
and voting by proxy.
I mean, I don't get it. That is what family values mean to my
Republican friends?
It took the Speaker a week--it took the Speaker a whole week--to buy
off a few votes by offering a pretend deal. Now, Republicans are ready
to move forward on the important legislative business of--wait for it--
passing the same bills they rejected last week, not that these bills
are any better the second time around.
These bills include a bill that will make it harder for women to
vote, a bill to let the Trump administration break the law, and two
resolutions that stick it to consumers.
Honest to God, Mr. Speaker, who asked for these? Which Trump donor
wrote these measures?
Meanwhile, what aren't we talking about on the floor right now? We
aren't talking about the tariffs, not a peep about the tariffs, not a
peep about the chaos in the markets, not a peep about the uncertainty
this is causing, not a peep about how this is going to screw over
middle America.
Never in my life have I seen anything like this.
The President promised lower prices and a booming economy, and we are
going to get higher prices and a recession. This is nuts.
Trump isn't using tariffs strategically. He is launching an economic
nuclear war, and we are all in the blast zone. This is a disaster.
Even if you agree with these tariffs, which is nuts, put that aside.
Even if you are a fan, can just one Republican admit that it is insane
that one guy is making this call alone?
Our Founders fought a revolution to stop one person from having this
much power, and so-called conservatives are rewriting the rules to
dodge a vote in Congress. This is crazy.
They are totally fine giving Trump unlimited power to do whatever the
hell he wants, and they won't even let us vote. They won't even let us
vote.
A few minutes ago, I sought recognition for a motion allowed under
the law to bring a joint resolution to the floor to end just one of
Trump's tariffs, and that request was denied because Republicans have
rigged the rules. Let me repeat that. Republicans have rigged the
rules, and I will talk more about that during this debate.
This is all because Republicans know what is coming, and they are
scared. They know people are going to lose

[[Page H1475]]

their jobs. They know paychecks are going to shrivel. They know prices
will go up, retirement plans will go down, and businesses are going to
stop investing.
They don't want to have to go home and explain it. They don't want to
have to put their names on that. They are rigging the rules so we don't
have a vote.
Guess what. They can run from accountability, but they can't hide
from the consequences.
You guys own this. You own the tariffs. You own the fallout.
There is no plan here, no strategy, just economic self-sabotage.
Regular Americans are going to pay the price for these tariffs. This is
a disaster for our country, and you guys are too chicken to even vote
``yes'' or ``no'' on whether you support the tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. 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. 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.

{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. 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.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. 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.
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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) will be happy
to learn that it already is the law that only American citizens can
vote in Federal elections. I am happy to send him the law so that he
can understand that.
Our problem with the SAVE Act is that it is an attempt to make it
more difficult for women who are U.S. citizens to be able to vote.
Talking about rigging the rules, again, there are four closed rules
in this rule. For those who are tuning in, that means that we can't
offer any amendments, we can't change anything, and we just have to
take it or leave it. That is called rigging the rules so that Democrats
and Republicans can't participate in the process.
Then there is a fifth measure in here. The gentleman who was just
screaming on the floor helped lead the effort to get the Speaker of the
House basically to go against the will of the majority in this House
who wanted very much to have an up or down vote on whether or not we
could allow new parents to be able to vote by proxy, so that they could
actually stay home with their new baby for a brief period of time and
be able to represent their constituents at the same time.
What is in this rule is a fake compromise, they call it. It is a
nothing burger. It doesn't change anything. It doesn't help anybody.
Basically, we can't debate or vote up or down on that. It is deemed
passed. Magically, it is deemed passed in this rule if this rule gets a
majority vote.
Mr. Speaker, not to mention what I was saying at the very beginning
that Republicans have basically shut off any attempts to bring
legislation to the floor to deal with President Trump's tariffs, which,
by the way, are going to result in enormous cost increases for
consumers.
Mr. Speaker, this whole House is being mismanaged. This whole House
is being run in a way that, quite frankly, would impress Vladimir
Putin. Yet, then again, maybe that is who they want to impress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms.
Pettersen), who led the effort, along with Ms. Jacobs of California, to
grant new parents the ability to be able to be good parents, to be able
to be with their newborns and still be able to represent their
constituents.
Ms. PETTERSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts
for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule that will kill our
bipartisan effort to allow parents who have welcomed a new child to
vote remotely.
I thank Representative Luna for her unwavering commitment to giving
moms and dads a voice in Congress. A large majority of the Members of
the House support changing the way we do things here and making it more
accessible to young families and more reflective of the American
people.
Speaker Johnson pulled out all of the stops to prevent us from moving
forward. We followed the rules and filed a discharge petition. We got
the 218 signatures necessary to bring it to a vote

[[Page H1476]]

on the floor. Yet, he went to historic lengths to try to stifle our
voices, including blocking our resolution today before we even had the
opportunity to vote for it.

Even the President supports this and doesn't understand why it is so
controversial, and neither does the rest of America.
Let's be clear that the changes agreed upon by the Speaker are not a
win for us. They do not address the challenges that we have worked so
hard to overcome. The Speaker turned his back on moms and dads in
Congress and working families across the country.
Congress is stuck doing things the way that we did hundreds of years
ago, and it is time that we move it into the 21st century.
For all of the people who have said that I should resign because I
can't do my job, they are completely missing the point. I am absolutely
capable of doing my job, but because I am a woman and because I chose
to have a baby, I have been prevented from doing so.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the people who have come forward on both
sides of the aisle in support of this effort, and I know that our fight
is far from over. We are not going to back down. We stand with the
people from across the country who have reached out, inspired to see
somebody like them who is struggling to manage having a new baby,
balancing work, and having a work environment that does not support
their needs.
Once again, I thank Representative Luna for being a champion, as well
as Representatives Jacobs and Lawler for all of their work on this. We
won't stop until we finally get this done.
Before I am done, I acknowledge Sam, who has now made four flights
across the country to change hearts and minds and also highlight the
need for reform here in Congress.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the solution we are going to vote on today to allow
mothers and fathers to continue to represent their constituents and to
be able to cast their votes is a great solution. It is one that existed
in this Congress before. It is a tried and true method. It broadens the
ability of people to vote when they cannot be here to vote. We have had
situations where we have had people rolled in on gurneys to be able to
vote.
Mr. Speaker, this is a much fairer way to do this in the way that we
are doing it now.
I also remind my colleagues who are speaking against or saying we are
not dealing with the tariffs issue is that former Speaker Pelosi,
Senator Schumer, and other Democrats railed against Chinese tariffs
years ago but did nothing about them. They even supported President
Biden's preserving of the tariffs from the Chinese most recently, and
they said nothing about it here.
President Trump is doing something about the tariffs. He is
responding in ways that will strengthen the international economic
position of the United States and protect American workers. He is
showing leadership where the Democrats have shown none.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me correct the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Ms. Foxx). We are not voting on any kind of compromise here.
It is being deemed. Republicans have it tucked into the rule so that we
don't have a separate vote on it. We are not going to have a separate
debate on it. Yet, that is one of the tactics used so that we can't
actually talk about it on the House floor.
Secondly, paired voting, if it was such a good idea, why did we get
rid of it 25 years ago? Basically, it is a glorified way to highlight
to people that Members are absent and not here voting. Ms. Pettersen's
vote won't count if she is not here.
It is just a stupid, ridiculous way to try to deal with the issue at
hand, which is that new moms and dads actually should be able to be
good moms and dads, stay with their kids at home, and be able to still
represent their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen) for any additional comments.
Ms. PETTERSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague, Representative Luna, has
done everything she can to try to find a path forward, and this is
ultimately the only option that existed at the end.
Yet, this does not address the real barriers that people continue to
face. This would be the last week that I could have been home, still
working in my district, working as a Member of Congress and
representing my constituents but making sure that I was not traveling
across the country with my son.
Do my colleagues think that there would be one Republican here today
who would stand on my behalf and vote ``present'' on the bills coming
forward this week?
I don't think so. This is why this is not a workable solution. This
is not going to address when people are unable to be here for medical
reasons and for the well-being of their kid after giving birth. While I
appreciate trying to find whatever common ground we can, this is not a
deal. This does not solve our problem, and the work continues.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Republicans should be ashamed of
themselves.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to be ashamed of. We are here solving
problems for the American people every day. We are responding to what
we were asked to do in the last election.
I just point out to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern)
that Republicans had a majority in the 118th Congress, the most recent
Congress. We are now in the 119th Congress.
We deemed only two items that were passed in the Committee on Rules.
In the 117th Congress, when the Democrats controlled the Congress, they
deemed 38 different items as passed in the Committee on Rules.

There is an old saying, Mr. Speaker: ``Those who live in glass houses
shouldn't throw stones.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, I laid out how Donald Trump's tariffs
are causing chaos and hurting families. I will explain why we are
unable to force a vote to block them here in the House, even though the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the National
Emergencies Act provide a process to terminate national emergencies
through a privileged joint resolution.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the House Rules and Manual says here: ``A
privileged motion to discharge a committee from further consideration
of a joint resolution terminating an emergency is available after the
measure has been referred to committee for 15 calendar days.''
A Member of this House, Ranking Member Meeks, introduced H.J. Res.
72, terminating the national emergency imposing tariffs on Canada, 34
days ago.
Earlier, I offered a motion to discharge his joint resolution from
committee and bring it to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, why wasn't it allowed?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman asking me?
Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's inquiry is not relevant to
the current proceedings.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, what I am just trying to figure out is
whether it is in order in the House to move to discharge H.J. Res. 72
or H.J. Res. 73 from committee so that they can be considered on the
floor.
I guess we are not going to get an answer.
Mr. Speaker, it wasn't allowed because Republicans changed how time
itself works in the House to prevent a vote on tariffs that is allowed
under the law.
Mr. Speaker, I will be clear here because the stakes are very high.
We are

[[Page H1477]]

talking about whether this House has the authority under the current
rules to stop the President of the United States from imposing
disastrous, calamitous tariffs that are causing economic chaos, raising
prices for regular Americans, and causing uncertainty for businesses.
A motion to discharge Ranking Member Meeks' resolution is not allowed
because Republicans literally changed the definition of what a day is
to protect themselves from voting on tariffs.

{time} 1245

Now, we should have been able to call it up after 15 days, but
Republicans are pretending 34 days is less than 15 days. Republicans
rigged the rules to protect Donald Trump, Mr. Speaker, and to protect
themselves from voting on his tariffs.
H. Res. 211, which the Republican majority adopted in March, changed
the operation of the calendar.
Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have the resolution in front of me and
it says that each day for the remainder of the first session of the
119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of
section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to a joint
resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President
on February 1, 2025.
So that resolution changed the operation of the National Emergencies
Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, also known as
the law, to make sure that Members of this House cannot force a vote on
Trump's tariffs.
Is that right, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's inquiry is not relevant to
the discussion.
Mr. McGOVERN. In fact, that is right, Mr. Speaker. You may not want
to opine on it, but the truth is, Republicans rigged the rules to
prevent a vote on these tariffs, a vote that Members of this body would
have been able to demand if we were following the law. I want to get to
the bottom of why we can't vote on these tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the National Emergencies Act states that a
joint resolution to terminate a national emergency passed by one House
shall be referred to the appropriate committees of the other House at
which point the 15-day clock would start if Republicans hadn't
magically stopped time.
According to that provision in law, Senator Kaine of Virginia's
resolution terminating the national emergency to impose tariffs on
Canada which was adopted by the Senate last week in a bipartisan vote,
but according to that, that bill must be referred to committee.
Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's inquiry is, again, not
relevant to the proceedings before the House.
Mr. McGOVERN. Well, it is not relevant to the discussion because
Republicans won't let us discuss the tariffs, but that is certainly how
I read ``shall,'' Mr. Speaker. Senator Kaine's resolution to force a
vote on Trump's tariffs has been sitting on Speaker Johnson's desk
since last week.
Mr. Speaker, if a measure is held at the Speaker's desk, it is not
subject to a discharge petition and we can't have an up-or-down vote on
these tariffs. The Speaker of the House right now is singlehandedly
preventing Members from forcing a vote on these tariffs, again, a right
that is in the law.
Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state
his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure I understand
this. Why are Republicans rigging the rules to prevent a vote on
Trump's tariffs?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a proper
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, you might not want to answer and you might
not like that I am pointing it out, but that is exactly what is
happening here.
Republicans have rigged the rules by literally redefining the
definition of a day to prevent us from voting on Trump's tariffs, and
the Speaker of the House is locking the Senate resolution in his desk.
These are the types of procedural tricks that Republicans try to bury
in the rules and hope that no one ever notices because they are too
confusing or too in the weeds. Not only did we notice, Mr. Speaker, but
we are going to make sure that the American people notice, too. One way
or the other, the American people are going to render a verdict on what
is happening here in this Chamber, and if it doesn't happen on this
floor, you can be damn sure it is going to happen at the ballot box.
These tariffs are going to be a disaster and the fact that
Republicans are too scared to stand up and vote for or against them
just proves my point.
This is a disgrace. This is the people's House. We are supposed to
debate serious issues on this floor, and the Republican leadership of
this House is rigging the rules so we can't do that. That is absurd and
that is a national disgrace.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are not afraid to debate tariffs, but we have four
bills to debate here today. That is the business that we need to be
dealing with.
I will point out to my friends, again, people who live in glass
houses should not throw stones.
The Democrats love to claim foul on Republicans shutting off national
emergencies, but perhaps they should reconsider given their own record
when it comes to tolling day counts.
They want to claim that Republicans are stopping time, but perhaps
they forget just a few short years ago, in the Democrat-controlled
117th Congress, their own House rules package, H. Res. 8, conveniently
stopped time for both legislative and calendar days regarding a myriad
of processes.
Let me read, Mr. Speaker, from their rules:
``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not
constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 7 of the War Powers
Resolution, 50 U.S.C. 1546.
``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not
constitute a legislative day for purposes of clause 7 of Rule XIII.
``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not
constitute a calendar or legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1)
of Rule XII.''
Now, what is this, the pot calling the kettle black? I am just not
sure of that. I do think it is important, though, to remind our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this happened. Mr.
McGovern wants the country to know what is going on here. We want the
country to know what is going on here, too.
Let me say that this is a package that all four minority members of
our committee voted in favor of, by the way. These manipulations were
maintained for nearly 18 months in subsequent rules with continued
support by the committee's minority counterparts.
Similarly, when it comes to the National Emergencies Act, in a rule
they permanently blocked votes terminating the COVID national
emergency, despite Mr. Gosar introducing two separate disapproval
resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, be careful what you accuse us of because we have the
facts and the record on our side.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what you just heard from the distinguished Chairwoman of
the Rules Committee is basically that the Republicans are too afraid to
debate and vote on tariffs. That is what we just heard. What is really
interesting is that in this rule that they are bringing to the floor,
they have a bill that will actually raise bank fees on consumers,
believe it or not. They want to give banks the authority to charge more
for overdrafts. That is in this bill.
They are too busy to talk about the fact that Donald Trump is raising
the cost of living and the cost of everything for average people in
this country, but they are not too busy to talk

[[Page H1478]]

about having banks raise bank fees on citizens of this country.
This is so messed up it is hard to believe. Right now, if you talk to
anybody in your district, if you did townhalls, which I know
Republicans don't want to do anymore--but if you did townhalls, people
are really nervous about not only the stock market and the uncertainty
there, but they are really nervous about rising prices.
People are trying to make ends meet and they are really concerned
about what is happening. Yet, Republicans are just too busy to talk
about the impact of these tariffs on their constituents here in the
House of Representatives?
Let that sink in, Mr. Speaker. This is ludicrous.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.J. Res. 91, a joint
resolution to terminate the reckless tariffs that President Trump has
put in place.
These tariffs are the largest middle-class tax increase in the last
50 years. Consumers are worried because their prices are skyrocketing
and iPhone prices could go up as much as $350. Every American with a
retirement account is worried because they are seeing their savings
evaporate. The S&P 500 registered its worst week since March 2020 when
Donald Trump, by the way, was also President.
Farmers are worried because the tariffs might put them out of
business. Some of them are already renting out their land since they
know they likely won't be able to make anything in 2025.
The result of all this needless chaos: less money in consumers'
pockets, less confidence in our country, and less certainty about our
future. That is why we must bring up H.J. Res. 91 to put Republicans on
record, to let Congress do our jobs, and to keep our constituents'
hard-earned money in their pockets.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Meeks) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for allowing me to
speak. I thank the ranking member for all of his hard work because for
sure what the President of the United States has done was lied to the
American people and broke a promissory note.
That promissory note was that he told the American people on day one,
inflation would go down. Prices would go down on day one, he said.
Instead, what the President has done is, unleashed an economic chaos on
the American people. Recessions are normally caused by complex factors
like oil price shocks, overleveraged financial markets, or global
pandemics.
This new economic disaster isn't caused by war or by an act of
nature. It is the result of one man who lied to the American people.
His name is Donald J. Trump.
With no coherent plan, he is imposing the largest peacetime tax
increase in American history. That is what tariffs are: taxes that will
increase the cost of living, your food, the car you need to drive to
work, your appliances, and your electronics. All of it will increase
what the average family will spend by more than $5,000 a year.
Trump has launched a trade war that has united our allies and our
adversaries against us. I could go on and on about the absurd
incompetence underpinning Trump's trade war: the pseudo emergency used
as an authority, the nonsense methodology used to justify the tariff
rates, or the ever-changing rationale about the reasons for starting
this tariff tantrum.
The tariffs have already triggered a stock market plunge, wiping out
trillions of dollars in value. That is the hard-saved money for your
children's education, for your 401(k), and for your dreams of
retirement. It is only going to get worse.
As prices go up, people will have less money to eat at their local
restaurants, see a movie, enjoy a family vacation. That means lower
demand, slower growth, job losses in every sector of our economy from
Main Street shops to factory floors.
The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. MEEKS. While Trump may have started this, if this Republican
majority chooses to duck a vote on my resolution ending these tariffs,
then they will own this, too. They will own the higher prices. They
will own the jobs lost. They will own the retirement savings erased.
They will own all of it.
Mr. Speaker, join us, sign on, and stop this tax of American people.
This is what should be happening for us to continue to be the greatest
Nation on the planet and make sure that things are affordable for the
American people. Let's join together in defeating the previous question
and put an end to this self-imposed economic wrecking ball.

{time} 1300

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the Reading Clerk told us what we were here to
do today. In my opening remarks, I read out what it is we are here to
do today. We have a rule, and then we are going to have four bills to
vote on. That is what we are here for.
Our Democratic colleagues are desperate. They do not want to talk
about this rule and what it does or the underlying bills. They want us
to try to look at shiny objects over here, Mr. Speaker, that have
nothing to do with what we are here to do today.
What Republicans want to do is focus on what we are here to do today.
We could talk about tariffs sometime, yes. We are happy to do that, but
let's talk about what we have to do here.
The Democrats don't want to talk about these because they correct
issues that the Biden administration did wrong, these midnight rules of
the CFPB. They don't want to talk about the rogue judges who have been
overruled by the Supreme Court. They don't want to talk about what is
happening here and now. They want to try to distract the American
people with other issues.
Mr. Speaker, let's deal with the issues at hand. Let's focus on
those, do our job as Members of Congress, and get on with our business
today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I talked about all
these issues last week. I talked about how I was opposed to the bill
that raises bank fees on regular people. I talked about how their bill
to make it more difficult for women to vote was a bad idea. I talked
about the importance of helping new parents be able to vote by proxy.
Forgive me if I am not following your made-up rules, but we already
discussed all this stuff last week.
When is the time that we are going to actually talk about the tariffs
and about the fact that Donald Trump is raising prices on average
people in this country? When are we going to have time to do that?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Stansbury).
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying welcome back to
my friends across the aisle. It is really nice to have them back here
in the people's House, especially after last week.
Their leadership shut down the United States House of Representatives
rather than accommodate new moms voting remotely with a newborn child.
Stellar work, my friends. You have simultaneously managed to shut down
the House and enrage millions of moms across America.
The American people actually want a government that represents them,
and that is why they are also outraged by the agenda that Republicans
have in this rule and are putting on the House floor this week,
including the SAVE Act, which would disenfranchise millions of
Americans, including millions of married women. You refuse to take up
an amendment that would protect them, so congratulations to my friends.
How about the No Rogue Rulings Act that is also being heard this
week? It would undermine the courts.

[[Page H1479]]

There are a couple of bills to roll back consumer protections to keep
banks from ripping them off.
Is that your agenda? That is it? You are going to rip off American
consumers, undermine their voting rights, undermine the judiciary, and
insult moms? Cool. Yes, this sounds like a great agenda.
Oh, I forgot, you are also going to tank the economy while Donald
Trump is playing golf, and you are going to try to pass a budget that
literally will cost the American people $37 trillion over the next 30
years while gutting their Medicaid and their food and housing
assistance.
Now, luckily, the American people are not falling for it, and
millions of Americans are speaking out and marching in the streets. It
is because of their actions that Elon Musk--thank you very much--is
finally leaving the building.
Make no mistake, this agenda will continue, as we see here this week.
That is why it is vital that the American people continue to speak up
and speak out, keep marching, keep showing up, and keep telling these
folks that we reject their agenda and its harmful impacts to the
American people, and we will not allow it to continue.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am going to take a little time to address the importance of the No
Rogue Rulings Act and why the American people are demanding action
against this unchecked abuse of nationwide injunctions.
The fact is activist liberal judges have been utilizing nationwide
injunctions in an unprecedented fashion. There have been 17 identified
cases in which Federal courts issued nationwide injunctions between
January 20, 2025, and March 27, 2025, against the Trump administration.
Compare this to the 19 injunctions issued during the entire Obama
Presidency, 8 years, Mr. Speaker. Fifty-five such injunctions were
issued against the first Trump administration, 4 years, Mr. Speaker. If
we look back to the Presidency of George W. Bush, only 12 nationwide
injunctions were issued in 8 years. Some estimate that only 27
nationwide injunctions were issued in the 20th century. This
exponential increase demands action.
Nationwide injunctions frequently extend far beyond the immediate
parties in a lawsuit, affecting entire populations and jurisdictions
not involved in the original dispute. These overreaching rulings create
significant uncertainty about Federal policies, drain taxpayer
resources, and embolden unelected judges to subvert the will of the
American people by thwarting the democratically elected President and
Congress.
Article III authorizes Congress to determine what types of cases
inferior courts have jurisdiction to review. In some past cases,
Congress has exercised this power by stripping Federal courts of
jurisdiction to hear certain classes of cases, but that drastic action
is avoided in this legislation. Instead, it takes a very measured
approach. The bill would curtail the scope of injunctive relief but
still allow for nationwide injunction under the appropriate
circumstances.

Injunctions would still be permitted. What won't be permitted is
having an activist judge from a liberal enclave in the country impose a
decision that goes far beyond the subject presented before him or her
in the courtroom.
The American people shouldn't be robbed of exercising their policy
preferences by judicial extremism, and it would apply evenly to future
Democratic and Republican administrations alike.
The policies being put forth by the Trump administration are novel,
creative, and bold. That is what the American people expected when they
voted for President Trump. Just because a policy is untested or
unprecedented doesn't mean it is illegal. Democrats may impugn
President Trump all they want, but these fundamental constitutional
concerns are best settled at the appellate level.
This legislation does nothing to affect the proper avenues for
constitutional challenges. Congress has always reserved this power to
bring order to the judicial branch. We simply want to impose some order
on the chaotic episodes unfolding in our courts.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, gee, I wonder why this administration more
than any other administration has so many injunctions against it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain why new moms
cannot proxy vote. The issue is very simple, and the answer is even
simpler to understand. It is because men don't have children.
If men had children, there would be proxy voting. After all, it was
over 100 years that this facility was in place, and we did not have a
facility for ladies, a ladies' room.
Men have taken for granted the needs of women, and if women would but
only stand up across the board in this House, if all the women would,
we could get this done, but there are some women who are still siding
with men, who don't want women to have the right to vote when they are
new moms.
I am saying ``new parents'' now, but I am talking about moms. I think
every man has a good reason to want to do this because you ought to
respect the person who carried you for 9 months, labored with you, and
gave you the breath of life. It is time to make a change.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. The entire world is watching in
astonishment as Donald Trump lights the American economy on fire.
Our voters deserve to know where their Members of Congress stand on
these tariffs. I just tried to force a vote. I was shut down because
the truth is they know this will be a disaster, and that is why they
are blocking Democrats from demanding a vote.
Republicans don't want to lower costs anymore. They want to lower the
standard of living, and that is exactly what these tariffs will do.
Now, let's be clear. Foreign countries don't pay the tariffs. We do.
American businesses, American farmers, American families, that is who
pays the tariffs, and unfortunately, the damage has been done.
Our trading partners are abandoning us. Our allies don't trust us.
Our adversaries are laughing at us. The cherry on top is that Trump
can't even explain the goal. He is slapping tariffs on everyone,
including uninhabited islands but not on Russia, no tariffs on Russia.
There are tariffs on Ukraine, but not on Russia. I am sure Putin is
thrilled.
This is a gut punch to middle America. This is a tax on every single
family in America. This is a disaster for our future. Congress needs to
do its job. It is time for every Republican to put their name on this
mess or finally stand up and stop it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have to respond about the fact that we are denying new
mothers and prospective mothers the opportunity to vote with this
legislation. That is just not true. It is going to need to be refuted
over and over again.
What we have done is accommodate not only prospective and new mothers
but we have also accommodated other Members who might need that
accommodation. Let me be clear about that. That is absolutely true.
Mr. Speaker, House Republicans remain laser focused on governing and
advancing legislation that addresses pertinent issues across the
Nation. Our foot is placed firmly upon the gas pedal of solving
problems the American people want us to solve.
The four pieces of legislation that will be considered under this
rule are part of our governing efforts and are in alignment with the
mandate that Americans gave us last November. Shielding consumer
choice, protecting consumer choice, and combating foreign influence
within higher education in America are issues that Americans care
about. We have heard their concerns, and we are addressing them yet
again this week.

[[Page H1480]]

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous
question and ``yes'' on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 294 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 91) relating to a national
emergency by the President on April 2, 2025. 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 Foreign
Affairs or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.J. Res. 91.

Ms. FOXX. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________