H.Res. 282

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 282 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 may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule providing for consideration of four measures: S.J. Res. 18, disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Customer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''; S.J. Res. 28, disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications''; H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025; and H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.

House Resolution 282 provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28, both under closed rules, with 1 hour of general debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees and provides each one a motion to commit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1526. This is the act relating to the U.S. District Court's issuing nationwide injunctions, and that is to be considered under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 22, the Safeguard America Voter Eligibility Act under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides that House Resolution 23 and House Resolution 164 are laid on the table.

Mr. Speaker, this rule deals with several issues. The underlying legislation included is essential. One of the bills included in this rule is H.R. 1526 led by the Representative from California (Mr. Issa).

This bill limits the ability of U.S. District Court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. I would like to be clear. This bill does not prohibit nationwide injunctions, Mr. Speaker. It merely establishes a mechanism to issue nationwide injunctions under appropriate circumstances.

Under the bill, if two separate States from two separate U.S. judicial circuits are reviewing the same case, a panel of three randomly chosen judges would be convened to determine whether issuing a nationwide injunction is appropriate action. These injunctions would then have the ability to be appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court.

I believe that no one district court judge in the United States anywhere, whether it be the Western District of Virginia, the Northern District of West Virginia, one of the districts in California, or anywhere else in the country, should have the ability to make nationwide decisions as a district court judge.

This bill would prevent forum shopping and somewhat restore checks and balances to our judicial system in the country by providing that we have a randomly selected three-judge panel.

Also included in this rule is H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or the SAVE Act, championed by the Representative from Texas (Mr. Roy). The bill prohibits noncitizens from voting. Let me get that through. There has been some confusion. It prohibits noncitizens from voting.

It does so by requiring States to obtain proof of citizenship when registering individuals to vote in Federal elections. Even though most States prohibit noncitizens from voting in their elections, these noncitizens are still registered to vote in some States and in some cities around the country.

Also noncitizens sometimes get registered by mistake. I am not saying this happens by design, but it happens by mistake, and it largely happens due to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 known as the Motor Voter Act. This requires every person applying for a driver's license with their State's Department of Motor Vehicles to receive a voter registration application. Various States and their Departments of Motor Vehicles don't generally check citizenship status before giving out the voter registration application. Some do, and hopefully this legislation will encourage more to do so.

During the last election cycle, we even saw that some Federal agencies were instructed to hand out registration forms without the ability to discern whether the person receiving the form is a citizen or not. So the noncitizen shows up at a government office, and they are given a form. They fill it out. I am not saying they are doing it for ill purposes, Mr. Speaker, but they fill it out. They are given the form, and then they fill it out. As a result, they end up showing up on some voter rolls, and there is the potential that they may vote improperly in one of our Federal elections.

Last Congress, then-West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner testified before a House Administration

Committee hearing to discuss his efforts to protect West Virginia elections. His State has removed 400,000 names from voter registration rolls and implemented voter ID requirements.

This bill attempts to fix the various loopholes and ensure that only eligible United States citizens are voting in our country's Federal elections. Now, Mr. Speaker, I keep saying Federal elections. If a local government wants to have folks who are not citizens voting, then that is their right. It is the same thing with the various States. It can happen out there if that is what they want, but in the Federal elections, that is where Congress gets into the act.

Also, this rule includes two resolutions of disapproval that both passed the Senate. S.J. Res. 18 nullifies the rule finalized by the Biden administration in December of 2024, that would be roughly 4 months ago, that attempts to cap overdraft fees.

Overdraft fees are a necessary evil that I believe in most cases actually help the consumer. Now, I understand nobody wants to pay it, but transparency is certainly helpful for consumers on an issue like this, and I am not sure these caps are the way to go.

Traditionally, things like overdraft fees are regulated by State regulators. It is unclear whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, can do this rulemaking under its cited authority in the Truth in Lending Act.

I have serious concerns that if this rule goes into effect that it can potentially bring about a criminal charge and even perhaps criminal punishment. I don't think the CFPB looked at all the criminal laws of the States, but having practiced for many years in the criminal courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia and having discussed it with the patrons of the bill, the same is fairly much true in the State of Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, if you use a draft or a check, and I know not a lot of people do that, but in the rural area I represent, they are still used frequently particularly by my senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, if you use a draft or a check to pay a merchant for something and that check comes back from the bank marked insufficient funds, then under Virginia law, you have created a presumption that the individual is attempting to defraud the merchant. That entitles, when the check is returned, the merchant to charge up to $50 for a returned check fee and to seek criminal penalties. If the check is not made good then they can seek criminal penalties which carry with it up to 12 months in jail for most checks and up to a $2,500 fine. That is certainly a whole lot more than the average fee for insufficient funds currently that are being charged by financial institutions, banks, and credit unions of about $35.

Further, Mr. Speaker, if a criminal charge is brought, then you may have the cost of an attorney, and you have to spend a day in court trying to work it out. If you pay it off after the charge is brought but before going to court, then you still have to pay all of the court costs associated with the charge being brought.

This is a significant problem that I don't think CFPB thought about when they were instituting this rule because if the banks and credit unions only allow a $5 fee, many of them will discontinue the use of this service. They won't allow you to sign up for it any longer, Mr. Speaker, and you could face potential criminal penalties.

Mr. Speaker, you can have the overdraft protection fee and pay about $35 or a $50 merchant fee and potential criminal charges. I think this is one that really does need to go away. I am surprised that my Democratic colleagues aren't supporting this, but they have other reasons.

S.J. Res. 28 nullifies another Biden administration rule that was finalized in December of 2024 as well that would create burdensome regulatory requirements for certain non-bank digital payments and digital wallet companies. This rule expands CFPB's regulatory power and was another attempt by the Biden administration to rush a rule out of the door for the CFPB after President Trump had been elected but before the new administration had the ability to have any input or consultation on how to carry out a public rulemaking process.

I am concerned this will cut down on people's use of innovative money transfer apps.

All four of these legislative items are steps in the right direction to cut down on red tape, ensure fair elections, and restore the system of checks and balances in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the rule to allow the House to debate the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Luna).

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman apologized for the noises on the floor. I love the noises and greatly appreciate having babies around.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I rise for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, are there any points of order that properly lie against this resolution we are currently debating?

That is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

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

I will say, the reason I raise that issue is because what we have in this rule is really just a different form of the classic motion to lay on the table or to postpone indefinitely.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that you have to go back to Jefferson's Manual and old practices to figure that out. Yet, that is, in essence, what this rule does in relationship to the resolutions that have been discussed being laid on the table and not being brought up.

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about proxies for a minute, if I might. I have always been opposed to proxy voting. I would say to my colleagues, both on the other side of the aisle and my side of the aisle, if I were to ever break that feeling that it is not the right way to run this body, this might be the one that would tempt me. Yet, we can't.

Even though we are looking now at a certain class that we are all sympathetic to, moms and babies and new dads, there are already discussions underway for expanding that. Now that this has started to be discussed, there are all kinds of discussions around Capitol Hill about other things that should be granted the ability to vote by proxy.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if Members agree with me that Representatives shouldn't vote by proxy, this is an appropriate technique under the rules of this House to allow us to, in essence, lay the issue of voting by proxy on the table.

I have heard people say: These folks followed the rules.

This is also a component of the rules, and oftentimes there is a clash of the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to quit making it sound like it is some kind of a nefarious thing. I don't agree with voting by proxy. I didn't vote by proxy when it was allowed. I didn't vote for anybody else by proxy when it was allowed. I have always been opposed to it. I think it is bad for the Republic.

In the long term, individuals may have differences of opinion. Individuals may disagree. Individuals may have circumstances where they that cry out to us to say: Shouldn't we allow it in this case?

Yet, I think it is bad for the Republic to go down that path. Just because others have done it and they did it when it was legal or proper under the rules and because some have had inappropriate behavior and done it when it wasn't supposed to be done, it does not mean that we should change the ruling or the rules of this House to allow it.

I was sitting here thinking. We have all kinds of rules, rules of the road, et cetera. Just because not everybody stops at a stop sign or not everybody stops at a red light doesn't mean that we should suddenly change the law and say people don't have to stop. That is the circumstance that I think that we are in currently.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

I believe the gentleman is referencing a Member by name, and I don't believe that is proper.

There you go.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have failed. I thought I made it very clear that when I talk about overdraft fees, I am talking about the little guy because the CFPB's rule doesn't recognize the laws of the States that make it a crime in some cases to have an overdraft. It makes it so that the little guy is going to pay more. CFPB didn't take that into consideration, in my opinion. They didn't understand that.

Yet, my colleague on the other side just talks about somehow Republicans are only looking out for the big businesses. No. No, this rule sets up the debate for overturning the CFPB rule and helping the little guy not face $150 to $750--that is in Virginia; I don't know about other States--in charges if they have to deal with a criminal penalty. $50 from the merchant, and they are worrying about a $5 to $35 fee. Yet, they are not paying attention to the real harm. That is it.

We have heard lots of arguments on all the issues included in this rule, and so I think it is important that we pass it. I urge everyone to vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would note for the American people that the Republican majority is bringing before the body two important measures this week.

The first measure is to ensure the integrity of our elections, to ensure that only American citizens can vote in American elections, a fairly commonsense principle, which enjoys 80 percent-plus approval among the American people, that would ensure in a straightforward way that noncitizens may not vote in our elections. It is that simple.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan problem that has been something

where you have judges that will act unilaterally as a single-district judge, and the question is: What do we do about it?

We have had Democrats who have said that we should change it. We have had Republicans who have said that we should change it. We are trying to change it. We are trying to say that a judge can take action on the parties before them, but nothing more, and then have that go up through another procedure, and then allow an appellate panel or a three-judge panel or the Supreme Court to fast track it, so if they decide there should be an injunction, there can be.

Mr. Speaker, let me put it in plain speak for the American people. We are putting measures on the floor to ensure that only American citizens vote in American elections and to ensure that judges don't make the policy for America but the elected leaders do, whether it is the executive branch, President, or the Members of Congress, and that there be a process to ensure that the Constitution, the laws of the land, are being protected.

That is what the majority in this body is putting forward. We can listen all day long about what we are hearing today regarding proxy voting. The American people who I know and represent and talk to expect us to show up. Right now, across this country, Americans are showing up to work. They are going in, and they are doing their plumbing work. There are electricians showing up to work. There are builders who are standing out in the sun. They are picking crops. They are working hard.

They don't get to take a pass. They don't get to not show up. Yet, we were elected to represent the 750,000-odd Americans each. We were elected under the Constitution of the United States, and we are supposed to show up in Congress; that is what it means. We are supposed to be here. It is why the institution exists. It is why this floor exists.

Mr. Speaker, there have been countless reasons why there would be cause for us to want to allow Members to have some sort of flexibility, such as people who are sick, or our friend, Steve Scalise, who was shot. He was shot, and he didn't ask for any special dispensation. He fought cancer, is still fighting cancer, and as majority leader is standing here on this floor every day doing the job.

New dads. I am a dad. My daughter and my son ask me to show up to things. I missed my son's 4-H presentation last week. I missed my daughter's 4-H event this last week. I have missed countless family engagements.

My wife carries the burden of making sure that our family can function back home in Texas, but I signed up for the job. That is what I did. I signed up for the job.

When Members let this happen, it will not just happen for mothers or fathers. It will be for everybody, and then we will have proxy voting where you will have pressures brought to bear that will fundamentally change this institution.

No, we should not allow this to occur. No, we shouldn't have a discharge petition brought to the floor, which does violence to the Constitution, does violence to the body, and does it with no ability to amend it. The way the rule is drafted, there would be no amendments and no ability to debate it.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for yielding additional time.

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing on the floor today is right and proper under our rules. It is to say that we should have a full-throated debate on something that would fundamentally change the people's House, nothing more, nothing less. We should do that.

This is something that has been debatable. It was debated by the Founders. It was debated by them and rejected. It was debated and rejected in the Articles of Confederation. It was debated and rejected in the Constitution. We are now staring at the result of having set aside tradition and precedent by embracing proxy voting during COVID. It is trying to be expanded beyond that. We should not do that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the gentleman from Virginia in supporting this important rule.

The rule would ensure the debate of important, commonsense legislation.

This includes additional CRAs to protect consumer choice and the ability of American businesses to continue to innovate.

It also provides for the consideration of the SAVE Act, legislation that fixes a broken provision of law by closing the loopholes that allow noncitizen voter registration and to enhance election security, minimizes the risk of foreign interference in U.S. elections, and restores Americans' confidence in U.S. elections.

It also includes important legislation by Mr. Issa to provide for a commonsense approach in limiting the exponential spread of nationwide injunctions. These nationwide injunctions, when combined with forum shopping by activists, are circumventing the will of the public by turning courts into public policy determinants, completely upending our constitutional framework.

I would like to briefly echo my earlier remarks at the Rules Committee this morning.

I am proud to support the provision in the rule that safeguards this Chamber from a take-it-or-leave-it, nonamenable approach to authorize proxy voting.

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, ``congress'' is defined as the act of ``coming together and meeting.'' I have never voted by proxy because I believe it undermines the fabric of that sacred act of convening.

I know there is a laptop class in America that seems to operate increasingly in a virtual space, but that is simply not a fact of life for most American workers, and I believe Congress should live by that standard.

Our Nation's construction workers can't build by proxy. Our Nation's police can't keep the streets safe by proxy. Teachers can't educate our students through the act of proxy. Doctors and nurses cannot treat the sick by proxy.

Let's not forget how dependent we were on service workers and delivery employees to get us the goods we needed during COVID. Where would we have been if they decided to ``proxy'' their responsibilities?

I understand that some of my colleagues are pinning their hopes on the fact that things will go according to plan, that proxy voting can be limited to select classes, and that those in authority can be trusted to enforce the rules. However, in the course of human events, things rarely ever go according to plan.

This isn't theoretical. The Democrats implemented proxy voting during COVID, and it was a disaster. We had one Member who was submitting his proxy letter so he could moonlight a second job.

We simply cannot throw this important decision to chance. It will take only slight reconfiguration of the deck chairs in this body to put Democrats back in charge and put us on a path to proxy voting without limitation.

Put simply, Members of Congress need to show up for work. I support this rule and urge my colleagues to support it on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule which restricts moms and dads from doing their jobs after welcoming a new child. Like so many of our colleagues, it is one of my greatest honors to be a mom. I have two little boys, a son named Davis who is 5, and my little guy here, Sam, who is now 9 weeks old.

It is also one of my greatest honors to have been elected by my constituents to represent them in Congress. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, after being a mom here and being only the 13th voting Member to have ever given birth while serving in Congress, I can tell you we have a long ways to go to make this place accessible for young families like mine.

When I was pregnant, I couldn't fly toward the end of my due date because it was unsafe for Sam, and I was unable to board a plane. I was unable to actually have my vote represented here and my constituents represented.

After giving birth, I was faced with an impossible decision. Sam was 4 weeks old. For all the parents here, we know that when we have newborns, that is when they are the most vulnerable in their lives. It is when they need 24/7 care, when taking them even to a grocery store is scary because you are worried about exposure to germs and them getting sick, let alone taking them to an airport, on a plane, and coming across the country to make sure that you are able to vote and represent your constituents.

I was terrified that no matter what choice I made, I would have deep regrets for the consequences. So, Sam and I made the trip out, and this is our third time now coming to the floor, for this vote.

I thank all the people who have stood by us. I thank Representative Luna for being such a champion on this issue.

While Sam is the best baby, I apologize for the noises here.

I thank Representative Luna for being such a champion on this issue, alongside the rest of my colleagues who have led this charge and supported us in our efforts to pass this resolution.

When I hear from Members about their stories, whether they are a mom or a dad doing this job, having a newborn who is in the NICU, and having to make the choice whether or not to leave their child or come here to vote, it is unfathomable that, in 2025, we have not modernized Congress to address these very unique challenges that Members face, these life events, where our voices should still be heard.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, thank you for signing our discharge petition. We are asking you to continue to stand with us because no mom or dad should be in the position that I was in and so many parents have found themselves in.

It is antiwoman. It is antifamily. We need to come together to make sure that we kill this rule and have the opportunity to pass this resolution to make sure that new parents have the ability to continue to represent their constituents.