SAVE Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 354 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), 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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

Last night, the Committee on Rules met and produced a rule providing for consideration of five pieces of legislation.

H.J. Res. 60 and H.J. Res. 78 are both considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit.

Additionally, H.J. Res. 87, H.J. Res. 88, and H.J. Res. 89 are all considered under a closed rule, each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees and provides each a motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule tolls the date counts regarding resolution of inquiry until September 30, 2025.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of this, I will start by saying on the Committee on Rules we tend to get to know each other pretty well in significant late-night engagement in debate. The ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. McGovern from Massachusetts, has had an unfortunate loss that words cannot possibly convey as a dad what he and his wife are going through with the loss of his daughter, Molly.

I say from this side of the aisle, I know speaking for the entire Committee on Rules irrespective of party affiliation, how much Jim, his wife, and his son are in our prayers after losing their daughter and sister, Molly, to cancer.

As a cancer survivor, I have seen firsthand the horrors of the disease. I told my Committee on Rules colleagues last night in committee, in my time in treatment at MD Anderson, going through chemo seemed trivial to me compared to watching the parents at MD Anderson who were watching their children go through treatment.

Molly went to Heaven last week while visiting a friend in Italy, and I think I speak for everybody in this body when we offer our deepest condolences to Jim and to his entire family and to our colleagues who were so close with and knew Molly, who, by the way, from memory I believe worked for Jamie Raskin as an intern, and had her own engagements in public service.

When I heard of her passing, I did a little googling about her life, her love for sports and Boston sports, her love of her dad, and how proud she was of her dad.

While, just on occasion, Jim and I might have disagreed here on the House floor--it has been known to happen--we are all united in offering our condolences and prayers for Jim's family, and God bless Molly and his entire family.

Mr. Speaker, on the legislation that is before us, I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are, no doubt, about to launch into how we have had an ineffective first 100 days and Congress is not doing anything.

Let me put in perspective for the American people what we are focusing on.

We are focusing on undoing the damage of the last 4 years of the Biden administration. The President is doing that on a daily basis in the White House today, and then we in Congress are using the powers that we have before us in an obvious narrow majority and in a narrow majority in the Senate, where you have to get things through the Senate with 60 votes. We

are using the tools in front of us to try to limit and minimize the damage caused by the previous administration and, frankly, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle today.

Notably, we are talking about in this situation what we have done so far. We have passed legislation to secure our elections through H.R. 22, the SAVE Act, to guarantee that only American citizens vote in American elections; to hold rogue judges accountable for issuing nationwide injunctions and trying to change the process.

Mr. Speaker, that is not partisan. Justice Elena Kagan talked about the need for injunction relief. The Democratic Solicitor General under the previous administration talked about the need for injunction reform. We offered legislation that would change and reform injunctions. We passed that before Easter so that a single judge won't be legislating and making national policy by granting temporary restraining orders and injunctions.

We made changes on border policy with the Laken Riley Act, which is extremely important; and legislation to combat the flow of fentanyl.

Importantly, what we have been trying to do is undo the damage on the border.

Mr. Speaker, keep in mind what has happened now under the first 100 days. In just 100 days, southwest border apprehensions have decreased by 94 percent year over year.

Mr. Speaker, consider that for a second. They decreased by 94 percent. What changed? Have we passed a massive law? Have we enacted the law that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said last year was necessary, this bipartisan bill which, by the way, would have codified all the bad policies under the Biden administration?

No. The only thing that changed was a White House willing to enforce the law. That is literally it, and now there is a 94 percent reduction in apprehensions at the border.

Keep in mind that we are now at apprehension levels of somewhere around 100 to 200 a day, 3,000 to 6,000 a month. We had 6,000, 8,000, 10,000 apprehensions per day under the Biden administration.

The President has restored common sense by ending DEI in the military and working to keep men from competing in women's sports, affirming that there are two genders. These are common sense. I wouldn't think we would have to spend time on the floor of the House of Representatives doing those things or having the President do it by executive order, but here we are.

The President has unlocked America's energy potential, or at least taken a giant step to doing so, by reopening 625 million acres for drilling, withdrawing from the disastrous Paris climate agreement, and approving new LNG projects.

Mr. Speaker, here before us today, we have what we call CRAs, under the Congressional Review Act. The purpose of these is to undo burdensome Biden regulations. This is our ability and our prerogative to hold the Biden administration accountable, and that doesn't stop just because the Democrats lost an election and we have a Republican in the White House. We have a duty to undo some of that damage.

Under these bills, we would repeal California's advanced clean trucks waiver, which currently would allow the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks. It would allow the State to mandate the sale of zero-emission trucks.

These bills would repeal the California advanced clean cars waiver allowing the State to ban the sale of gas-powered vehicles by 2035; put an end to California's implementation of its most recent nitrogen oxide engine emission standards, which create burdensome and unworkable standards for heavy-duty, on-road engines; nullify a rule by the National Park Service that would infringe on the employment of a recreational area, contravening the agency's own mandate when it was created; and, finally, one that would end an Endangered Species Act designation by the Fish and Wildlife Service that would threaten water resources and other conservation efforts.

Mr. Speaker, these things matter to the average American. My colleagues are going to say that this is small ball, and it doesn't matter.

Every one of these regulations add up to interference with the enjoyment of life by the American people, drive up the price of the goods and services for the average hardworking American family, make vehicles more expensive, make our lives more costly. Then people wonder why they are suffering from inflation and suffering from the inability to afford to live in the modern world.

This Congress is taking steps to undo that damage, working with the White House to restore the ability of the average American family to live and afford the basic necessities of life, including vehicles and the right to be able to choose the vehicle of their choice in an open market.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues are going to say that we are infringing on California. Let's remember that California gets treated specially and uniquely and that that then has a domino effect through the rest of the country. That is unique to California based on past precedent involving Los Angeles smog and other things where that is causing a direct impact on other States across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I miss getting that admonition. It was a pretty regular occurrence in my various floor speeches.

With respect to the resolutions of inquiry, let me put out there that it is my strong preference, as I have said multiple times on the floor of the House, that we come up with a system that allows the body to work its will and that we allow individuals to be able to move forward in good faith to get information and ask questions of the executive branch, no matter who is in power.

I introduced the ARTICLE ONE Act to try to restrict Presidential power under the Trump administration the first time and had trouble getting it moved during the Biden administration. I am not really even pointing fingers. I am acknowledging the politics. I had some Democratic colleagues and friends of mine that would say: I like that idea, but I don't know if right now is the time. Okay, but let's have the conversation.

Let's take ROIs, what we call resolutions of inquiry, a tool in which we can specifically go ask for specific information. We have engaged in that effort. I certainly have. For over 600 days in the 116th and 117th Congresses, ROIs, these resolutions of inquiry, were blocked from coming to the floor by the Democratic majority. That is, of course, the ``you did it, so we will do it'' argument--not particularly satisfying if you want to have an open body.

I think the question would be: What do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to have? What should the rule be? If we want resolutions of inquiry to just be allowed in perpetuity, then maybe we need to come up with a way to try to guarantee that and do that, but that is not what happens. We have turned them off. Both sides have turned them off.

I would also add, for example, for the filibuster rule in the Senate, are we going to abide by the 60-vote threshold in the Senate as a Congress? My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the filibuster rule for judges and succeeded, and now, we have a 51- vote threshold for judges.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tried to change the rule for legislation, and but for Kyrsten Sinema and but for Joe Manchin, they would have done so. Then, the Senate would have been operating by a 51-vote threshold for legislation.

Maybe that is good or bad, but maybe we should decide the rules we want to operate under and then apply them to both sides. Right now, we are operating under a 60-vote threshold in the Senate.

I think that is something maybe we ought to put to a vote right here in this body, in the House, and say: Do we believe that the United States Senate should operate under a 60-vote threshold? Because if you go watch the Twitter feed of Kyrsten Sinema, she is pretty explicit about what she is watching and the hypocrisy of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the Senate who now suddenly have newfound love and respect for the 60-vote threshold.

My point being, if we are going to change the body institutionally, then let's have a real conversation about changing the body institutionally.

Closed rules, I get it. In the majority, we are sitting here, and we have more closed rules. Do we want open rules? Then what will happen when the Democrats are in charge? Do you want resolutions of inquiry? What do we do to bind the hands of a future House on those points if not us agreeing to respect each other's ability to do that?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, a couple quick points on the resolutions of inquiry. I won't waste a whole lot more time on it.

The fact is, one, we have extended this through September 30 only at our request to limit it because we want to be able to get through reconciliation.

Two, my colleagues want to blame COVID. Committees were still in full operation. The fact of the matter is my colleagues didn't want to answer questions that we were asking about the border because they were unanswerable. The border was wide open. Americans were getting killed. Americans like Jocelyn Nungaray, Americans like Laken Riley, Americans like Rachel Morin, and Americans like Kayla Hamilton. I can keep going down the list of dead Americans at the hands of the foolish, incompetent, and dangerous policies of the Biden administration that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did not want to answer. That is the simple truth. When we wanted to get data about the border, they didn't want to answer it. It wasn't because of COVID.

Mr. Speaker, I note with respect to California that California's mandates effectively take away America's ability to buy new gas cars. As I mentioned earlier, California gets some special treatment. It is the only State allowed to seek waivers for its own vehicle policies due to a provision in the Clean Air Act crafted to allow California to address Los Angeles area smog, and so they have an outside impact on our ability to get affordable vehicles, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles which would be unnecessarily impacted by where California wants to go and which we want to try to solve.

Mr. Speaker, I also note that California, as KTLA reported in a January 30 article, continues to lose more people than come into other States because of the tragic and unfortunate policies of the State of California.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will note that neither the GAO nor the Senate Parliamentarian get a vote. It is sort of a shocking news revelation I recognize, but they don't get a vote. We do. The Senate does. We can decide what we think ought to apply.

Number two, if my colleagues want to talk about the high price of vehicles, how about the extent to which the average EV costs $14,000 more than the average nonluxury vehicle.

According to the latest data from Kelley Blue Book, the average transaction price for electric vehicles is $55,273, 3.7 percent higher than last year. For context, the median household income for the gentlewoman's district is $62,000.

The fact of the matter is, EVs are expensive. EVs are driving up the price of vehicles. The mandate is taking the power out of the hands of the American people to decide, including, by the way, hybrid vehicles which allow individuals to have more efficient vehicles while being able to travel long distances, as I know the gentlewoman has constituents who need to do so in New Mexico as we need to do in west Texas and throughout the State of Texas.

Additionally, the trucks that are required under California's unrealistic mandates cost two to three times more than a new, safer, and more reliable diesel truck. The fact is, we are driving up the price of goods and services. We are making it more expensive for the American people to live. We are making it almost impossible for people to fix their vehicles and be able to afford their vehicles with every new thing we add to it to make it more complex in the name of safety or the environment.

The fact is, we can't be blind to those realities. That is exactly what is happening. That is why the American people are suffering from the inability to afford to live in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am always amazed when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ignore the fact that these EVs require power. Somehow they get charged from the magic fairy dust of the magic energy tree? I mean, what are we talking about here?

How do you power up an electric vehicle? It is done by burning coal, burning gas, or the nuclear plants that we are not actually permitting or building in the United States, while China builds two coal-fired plants virtually every week. We are building none. Well, good for us.

The vast majority of the world is producing power with coal and natural gas, and it is growing exponentially. Meanwhile, we are crushing our grid, the reliability of American power, making it more expensive for the average American and doing really nothing about worldwide CO2 production. That is the truth. China and India are pumping it out.

Meanwhile, my colleagues love to ignore the slave labor in China to produce the batteries that they drive around in their EVs while they pat themselves on the back and go to cocktail parties talking about how fantastic it is that they drive their EVs and how enlightened they are.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record three articles: `` `Like slave and master': DRC miners toil for 30p an hour to fuel electric cars'' in the Guardian; ``EV makers' use of Chinese suppliers raises concerns about forced labor''; ``U.S. says Chinese lithium-ion batteries are made with child labour as trade war spills into EVs.''

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to parade around EV mandates like they are somehow going to magically create power out of thin air, ignoring the fact we are empowering China, ignoring the fact we are empowering Chinese child laborers while we destroy the cost of living for the average American family, take away choice, take away the ability of an American citizen to be able to go out into the market and buy a hybrid vehicle or another vehicle that they can use to travel long distances, do their job, whether they are a plumber, an electrician, or carrying goods and services in a truck, and then they wonder why the cost of goods and services go up. Then they want to blame tariffs when we are 90 days in, and we had massive and rampant inflation under the Biden administration as a direct consequence of the regulatory policies and the failed policies of the previous administration.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

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?

Yes.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

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).

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. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, together with President Trump's recent voting- restrictive executive order, the SAVE Act would cripple American elections. It would end voter registration in the United States as we know it.

The SAVE Act would end mail-in registration. You heard that right, Mr. Speaker. All those States and all those people who register by mail--not vote by mail--registration by mail, it would end that. American citizens would have to appear in person at an election office and bring with them various documents and forms to register to vote.

Think about it, Mr. Speaker. Just to exercise your fundamental, inalienable rights as a citizen of this country, Republicans would force Americans into a paperwork nightmare, burying voter registration under a mountain of bureaucracy and red tape.

So what exactly would the SAVE Act do?

It would create enormous burdens for every American citizen who seeks to register to vote.

Let's dig into the details.

As my Republican colleague and friend admitted at the Rules Committee, under the SAVE Act, most Americans would be unable to register to vote using their REAL ID. Further, under the SAVE Act, almost 70 million American women will be unable to register to vote using their birth certificate simply because they changed their name upon marriage. The bill would disenfranchise survivors of domestic abuse who have changed their names for safety purposes, which is truly shocking.

The SAVE Act will also have a steep financial cost to American citizens because, yes, the SAVE Act does allow Americans to use their passports to register to vote, but one-half of all Americans do not have a passport, and a passport costs $130 plus additional fees. So the SAVE Act would cost American voters who do not have passports billions of dollars to secure them.

Americans are facing rising costs exacerbated by the recent Trump tariffs. Economists are warning about a looming Trump recession.

Let's face it. The SAVE Act would force U.S. citizens to spend billions of dollars to register to vote. This includes rural voters, many of whom now register to vote online or by mail, who will be forced to drive hours and cross hundreds of miles to present documentary proof. This includes senior citizens who are particularly likely to lack documentary proof of citizenship, including passports, copies of their birth certificates, or other documents.

What about the men and women in uniform who serve our country all over the world?

Can a member of our military use their military ID?

Surely military IDs should be enough to register to vote, but not according to the SAVE Act. Servicemembers will need to bring their military ID and a copy of their service record showing their place of birth within the United States. However, many servicemembers were born abroad, say to military parents overseas. Many are naturalized citizens. Those servicemembers will be blocked from using their military ID to register to vote.

Mr. Speaker, do you remember the SAVE Act's requirement that Americans show their documentation in person at an election office?

It will have drastic consequences. The SAVE Act will prevent members of our Armed Forces from registering to vote while deployed overseas.

Moreover, the SAVE Act is not actually meant to prevent noncitizens from voting. The SAVE Act is really about silencing Americans. This bill is about disenfranchising Americans, not noncitizens, but Americans, Americans like James Wilson.

James Wilson is an Arizona voter whom I met with last week. He was meant to join us in the gallery. He flew all the way to Washington, D.C., last week to watch Congress debate the SAVE Act. He was forced to fly home after the Speaker canceled 3 days of legislative work.

Mr. Wilson is an American citizen, born in Japan to a military father during the Vietnam war. Mr. Wilson is also a veteran. He proudly served our Nation overseas, including in Korea and Germany.

Like millions of Americans, Mr. Wilson does not have a passport because he does not need a passport. Like millions of Americans, Mr. Wilson does not have access to his birth certificate.

When Arizona introduced a restrictive voter registration law, a law just like the SAVE Act, Mr. Wilson's right to vote was imperiled. Mr. Wilson did not have any of the documents required by the Arizona law and required by the SAVE Act to prove his citizenship. But for a last- minute emergency court order, Mr. Wilson, an American citizen, a veteran, and a patriot, would not have been able to vote this past election.

If the SAVE Act becomes law, Americans nationwide will face the same bureaucratic nightmare that Mr. Wilson faced in Arizona. The SAVE Act will force Americans like Mr. Wilson to pay billions of dollars to exercise their inviolable right to vote.

House Republicans want to increase the burdens and amplify the costs in time, in money, and in effort for American citizens to vote. House Democrats do not.

The SAVE Act would cost American citizens something deeply important, something essential to the soul of this Nation, the right to freely and fairly participate in our elections.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge defeat of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the work of my colleagues from the committee. We agree on many things, but this is certainly not one of them.

I want to reflect on what the gentlewoman from Florida and others have said several times, that the SAVE Act allows States to create a process to provide additional proof of citizenship. Why not write it in the bill? Why are we making the potential for 50 different standards to be set to prove citizenship? What additional forms would be used, a birth certificate together with an ID, also including a marriage certificate, also including a record of a changed name?

What must survivors of domestic abuse provide? Must they provide court orders protecting them from stalkers, restraining orders, divorce records, divorce papers? How much would that cost? How much paperwork do Republicans want Americans to drown in?

Further, how long will these new rules take? The SAVE Act takes effect immediately. What if States take months or years to amend their systems? What if they never do it?

You might have someone interested in voting, but their State hasn't acted. They have no way of proving that the name on their birth certificate, which differs from the name on their ID, is because they got married. They would be unable to register to vote.

Here is what we do know. President Trump's executive order doesn't want any alternative forms of identification, no alternative State processes, no additional avenues for voters. Why would we expect the EAC to disregard the President's clear desire to limit documentary proof of citizenship to a small, exclusive, difficult-to-obtain list of options?

I would say in addition to my dear friend--and I mean that sincerely--the gentleman from Wisconsin, I would like to remind him that an estimated 165,000 women in his district in Wisconsin have a different name on their birth certificate than is on their current photo ID. Under the SAVE Act, these women could not register using their birth certificate alone. Roughly 340,000 residents in Wisconsin's First District lack a passport, so the SAVE Act could cost voters in the district $45 million if they chose to comply that way.

I would also like to remind my colleague and friend, Representative Lee, an estimated 170,000 women in her district have a different name on their birth certificate than on their photo ID. Likewise, under this bill, these women could not use their birth certificate to register to vote because they have a different name now than at birth. Roughly 368,000 residents of Florida's 15th District lack a passport. It would cost voters in the district at least $47.8 million to secure a passport to register to vote.

These are the facts. This is what the bill requires. We should not gloss over it because this is a mountain of bureaucratic red tape. If you can't get it right in the bill, if you don't list marriage license in the Federal bill, and it is left to the States, who knows how and when we resolve these issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Oregon an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make note of the point that REAL ID in the United States does not have citizenship in almost all States. A handful have it. You couldn't even use your REAL ID.

If we are talking about voter ID and photo ID, it doesn't even allow you to vote under the SAVE Act. The gentlewoman should read the bill. It doesn't allow it, and I think that is part of the problem.

I would also note, Mr. Speaker, in Representative Miller's district, an estimated 150,000 women have a different name on their birth certificate than their current photo ID. Under the SAVE Act, these women could not use their birth certificate to register to vote and would not be able to use their ID, their driver's license. Roughly 414,000 residents of Illinois' 15th District lack a passport.

The SAVE Act would cost voters in Mrs. Miller's district $53.8 million should they avail themselves of a passport to prove the requirements of the SAVE Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that, in the United States of America, you have to be a U.S. citizen to vote in a Federal election. If you are not, you are subject to penalties for attempting to register to vote, and you are subject to felonies and deportation if you do vote and are not an American citizen. That is the current law.

I also remind my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), that an estimated 135,000 women in his district have a different name on their birth certificate than they have on their current photo ID, and roughly 290,000 residents of California's Fifth District lack a passport. The cost to those voters would be $37.7 million to get passports.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams), my dear friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I hate to disagree with my dear friend, the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), but the words ``marriage certificate'' do not appear anywhere in the SAVE Act. In fact, it could have been written in that way since Republicans are adding all these lists and requirements for people to do. Yet, it actually does make it harder for almost 70 million American women to vote.

Eighty-four percent of women choose their husband's name when they get married. That is just a statistic.

As we have discussed, under the SAVE Act, most Americans will be unable to use the standard-issued driver's license when registering to vote because most REAL IDs don't include citizenship on them. They don't automatically update if you haven't registered at all. When you go to register, there is nothing to update.

You have your birth certificate. In the case of Mary Beth Bauer, that is what it says on her certificate. Her driver's license now says ``Mary Beth Morelle.'' She would not be able to register using those two pieces of information. She would have to get an additional piece of documentation to register, which is not identified in the SAVE Act.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have talked about it at length. This is clearly intended to make it much more difficult. According to House Republicans, none of these women should be allowed to register to vote. They are roughly 25 percent of the U.S. citizen voting age population.

I also suggest to my friend from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice) that an estimated 179,000 women in her district have a different name on their birth certificate than a current photo ID, and roughly 394,000 residents of Oklahoma's Fifth District lack a passport. The SAVE Act would cost them $51.3 million to secure passports.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Mullin), my dear friend.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I note that while the previous speaker, Ms. Boebert, has not had to bring all of those documents, she hasn't had to register to vote under the SAVE Act. That is actually the point.

Mr. Speaker, I also remind her that an estimated 159,000 women in her district have a different name on their

birth certificate than they have on their current photo ID and that roughly 284,000 residents of Colorado's Fourth District lack a passport. The SAVE Act could cost them $36.9 million to secure passports in order to register to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues doth protest too much. I have read the bill many times. I have debated the bill. There is nothing in the bill that allows you to bring a marriage license to prove who you are when you register to vote. You will have to do all the things we suggest you will have to do, and that is exactly the problem.

I will also remind my colleague and friend from Florida that in Mrs. Cammack's district, an estimated 170,000 women in her congressional district have a different name on their birth certificate than on their current photo ID and that roughly 409,000 residents of Florida's Third Congressional District lack a passport. The cost to those individuals: $53.1 million to secure passports.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell), my dear friend and distinguished member of our committee and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Elections of House Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's comments lead me to the question: Do Republicans believe that every attestation under Federal law is rife for subversion? Americans must attest under penalty of perjury that their tax returns contain correct information. Do Republicans want to end this honor system by requiring Americans to provide even more documentation to the Internal Revenue Service?

It is a Federal crime to lie on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms Form 4473, the firearms transaction record. That form is filled out under the same honor system that governs voter registrations. Are you telling me that Republicans are open to strengthening gun licensing laws in the United States and no longer accept attestation?

Each of us must submit records to the FEC, attesting under penalty of perjury that our campaign committee reports are accurate. Do Republicans now want to provide the American people greater transparency around political spending because if they do, I have a bill they can support, the Freedom to Vote Act.

I will also suggest to the gentleman, Representative Bean, that an estimated 170,000 women in his district have a different last name on their birth certificate than is on their current photo ID and roughly 397,000 residents of Florida's Fourth District do not have a passport. It would cost them $51.7 million to secure one.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Figures), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Friedman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Latimer), my dear friend.

Mr. Speaker, I was remiss earlier. I want to remind my colleague, Mr. Roy, that an estimated 150,000 women in his district have a different name on their birth certificate than on their photo ID, and 336,000 residents of Texas' 2lst District lack a passport, a cost of $43.7 million to those who would need to get a passport should they choose that.

Also, I would like to remind my colleague, Representative Kiley, an estimated 135,000 women in his district have a different name, and roughly 268,000 residents of California's Third District do not have a passport. The cost to them for getting one is $34.8 million.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The SAVE Act is, to put it nicely, the most severe voter suppression bill ever considered at the Federal level.

Coupled with President Trump's recent antivoter executive order, the SAVE Act would end the voter registration process for all Americans as they know it.

Republicans have repeatedly failed to present any evidence that noncitizen voting at the Federal level has ever affected the outcome of any election.

The SAVE Act will make it harder for American citizens to vote--for married women to vote, for servicemembers, students, rural Americans, senior citizens, Native voters, survivors of natural disasters, and survivors of domestic abuse to vote. It will make voting more expensive, in fact forcing American families to pay billions of dollars just to register to vote.

Democrats want a country where every American citizen can vote. That is why we champion bills like the Freedom to Vote Act, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, and the Native American Voting Rights Act, not the SAVE Act.

I fiercely oppose this anti-American bill. I urge every one of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to defeat this extremist, antivoter SAVE Act.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

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.

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. 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).

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.

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

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. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Florida.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 294 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.