H.Res. 294

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1526.

I heard the majority was bringing legislation forward to clean up a major policy crisis taking place within the first 100 days of the Trump administration, and that sounded pretty good to me because we are drowning in crises. The problem is that this bill does not address any of the real major policy crises of the first 100 days that Trump has caused for America. They are wasting our time with this bill by misdiagnosing and mislabeling the judicial response to these crises as a crisis itself.

The whole country is reeling right now from the economic disaster Trump has plunged us into. He destroyed more than $10 trillion in American wealth in 1 single week, and then he went golfing and bragged to America about winning the tournament at his own golf course. Madam Speaker, that is like bragging about being endorsed by your own campaign manager.

With so much winning, the country can hardly stand how much winning Trump is doing for himself, Elon Musk, and his billionaire Cabinet. Perhaps he could have yelled fore on the fareway so tens of millions of Americans could have taken our retirement savings out of the stock market before he hit us in the head with a golf ball.

Trump's ruinous tariffs have crushed our relationships with democratic allies and loyal trade partners like Canada, Mexico, the U.K., Germany, and France while delicately carving out an exception for Trump's friends in the home office back in Russia.

When asked why Putin uniquely escapes the wrath of Trump's global trade war, we are told it is because Trump doesn't want to interfere with the negotiations taking place between Russia and Ukraine for a cease-fire, an explanation that might have somewhat more force if Trump had not made sure that the tariffs do apply to Ukraine as they do.

The basis for this most imbecilic and destructive trade war in the history of the world is the profound economic research and policy writings of one Ron Vara, a completely fictional economist conjured up by Trump adviser Peter Navarro, a real person whom Elon Musk just called a moron and dumb as a sack of bricks.

Navarro's last name, delightfully, is an anagram for Ron Vara. Madam Speaker, you can try this yourself at home. Navarro turns into Ron Vara. Navarro figured that out himself. That is perhaps the greatest achievement of the Trump administration so far. What an enchanting and clever basis upon which to crash the economy of the United States of America.

Despite the fact that Congress, not the President, has the power to regulate international commerce and legislate tariffs, our GOP colleagues don't even want to have one hearing on the breathtaking economic folly and wreckage of this fling into the abyss of trade war with the world, much less do they want to do anything to reverse this policy nightmare for tens of millions of businesspeople, farmers, workers, retirees, and consumers being throttled by this historic, self-inflicted wound.

No, today they want to talk about the real emergency, which is the power of the United States district courts to issue universal injunctions rather than just injunctions that apply to the specific parties in the case.

It seems like a rather boutique and esoteric issue to raise in the middle of an economic catastrophe that they just foisted upon America, but there is a method to the madness. You see, Madam Speaker, Federal judges have issued at least 68 court orders that block or pause the administration's lawlessness to prevent irreparable harm in the country from his unconstitutional actions. The judges deciding here were appointed by five different Presidents, both Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents, in 11 different district courts across seven circuits. The judges have explained in painstaking detail what is unlawful about Trump's executive orders and actions.

Trump has offered no substantive critique of their legal reasoning, but he and Musk still want the judges impeached. They say they should be removed from office simply for striking down the President's illegal policies, which is odd given that Trump and his party demanded for 4 years that Federal judges strike down President Biden's policies like student loan forgiveness or immigration policies or EPA action on climate change.

They seem to embrace Marbury v. Madison and judicial review of Democratic Presidential actions but not of Republican actions. They say that is because Trump just won an election. He beat Kamala Harris by 2 million votes.

Guess what, Madam Speaker. Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by over 7 million votes, and that didn't stop them from suing to stop numerous Biden policies they thought were unlawful. Sometimes they won, and sometimes they lost. It is the same now. Nearly 160 cases have been brought against Trump and Musk's actions. Trump has won some, and he has lost some.

However, our colleagues protest that Trump is different because the courts have issued relief in at least 57 different cases, a record number of cases in American history, at record speed. That is true, but if it seems like an incredible number of cases to lose in less than 100 days, recall that Trump is engaged in a record number of illegal actions at a breathtaking velocity never seen before in U.S. history.

As of today, he has already issued 111 executive orders in less than 100 days. Biden issued 162 in all 4 years. Trump can issue as many as he wants, but he has got to make them constitutional because if they are not, they are going to get struck down.

When Trump denounces the judges as radical left judges and lunatics who have gone rogue like Judge Boasberg, he is just advertising his complete ignorance of the Federal bench.

Judge Boasberg is the chief judge of the U.S. District Court, first nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, who was Justice Kavanaugh's roommate at Yale and a pillar of the conservative bar.

We have impeached only 15 judges in U.S. history, always for serious misconduct like taking bribes, embezzlement, corruption, and habitual drunkenness on the bench. It was never because of a doctrinal disagreement and never because of a judge's legal ruling. As Chief Justice Roberts said a few weeks ago, the proper response in our democracy to a judicial decision that you disagree with is to appeal the ruling, not impeach the judge.

Donald Trump has gotten some relief in some of his cases already. The system is working. We don't need to turn the whole world upside down to distract from the economic calamities they have brought upon us.

All this would be fun and games except the rhetorical assault by Trump and Musk and our colleagues against the judiciary has turned into something far more sinister in some quarters: death threats, bomb threats, and online intimidation and harassment of judges. These judges are currently targets of an onslaught of social media taunts and attacks that call for their exile to GTMO or label them a national security threat or traitors. Even worse, this campaign of vilification has spread to their families, including attacks on a Federal judge's daughter who had her photo and place of work posted on a social media site by Elon Musk to his 290 million followers. These threats followed an actual bomb threat targeting the sister of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. It is a dangerous situation.

Now our colleagues want to pass the No Rogue Rulings Act which would effectively ban Federal district courts from providing nationwide relief against unlawful actions by the administration. Litigants could request injunctive relief only with respect themselves.

So, for example, if the President establishes a church or bans newspapers or imposes martial law, then each citizen in America would have to bring his or her own case because the courts would not be able to rule to strike down unconstitutional actions generally. That is patently absurd, and we are going to be able to explain how this legislation is a massive distraction

from the issues that are really facing America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record ``The Lost History of the `Universal' Injunction,'' a law review article by Mila Sohoni refuting what was just stated by the gentleman. The universal injunction, the nationwide injunction, goes back at least to 1913 and has been used repeatedly over the last century.

[From the Harvard Law Review]

The Lost History of the ``Universal'' Injunction

(Mila Sohoni)

The issuance of injunctions that reach beyond just the

plaintiffs has recently become the subject of a mounting wave

of censorious commentary, including by members of Congress, a

Supreme Court Justice, the Solicitor General, the Attorney

General, and the President. Critics of these ``universal''

injunctions have claimed that such injunctions are a recent

invention and that they exceed the power conferred by Article

III to decide ``Cases[ ] in . . . Equity.'' This Article

rebuts the proposition that the universal injunction is a

recent invention and that it violates Article III or the

traditional limits of equity as practiced in the federal

courts. As far back as 1913, the Supreme Court itself

enjoined federal officers from enforcing a federal statute

not just against the plaintiff, but against anyone, until the

Court had decided the case. If the Supreme Court can issue a

universal injunction against enforcement of a federal law,

then--as an Article III matter--so can a lower federal court.

Moreover, lower federal courts have been issuing injunctions

that reach beyond the plaintiffs as to state laws in cases

that date back more than a century, and the Supreme Court has

repeatedly approved of these injunctions. If Article III

allows such injunctions as to state laws, it a fortiori

allows such injunctions as to federal laws. Mapping these and

other pieces of the lost history of the universal injunction,

this Article demonstrates that the Article III objection to

the universal injunction should be retired and that the

unfolding efforts to outright strip the federal courts of the

tool of the universal injunction--whether by statutory fiat

or by a judicial redefinition of Article III--should halt.

But I would speak to the consciences of honorable men, and

ask, how they can venture . . . to recommend changes, which

may cut deep into the quick of remedial justice . . . .

Surely, they need not be told, how slow every good system of

laws must be in consolidating; and how easily the rashness of

an hour may destroy, what ages have scarcely cemented in a

solid form.

--Joseph Story, Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court (1812-

1845)

introduction

The Trump Administration and the Obama Administration do

not seem to have much in common. But they have had one shared

foe: the ``universal'' injunction. Across both

administrations, federal district courts have issued a slew

of injunctions blocking the executive branch from enforcing

federal laws, regulations, or policies ``not only against the

plaintiff, but also against anyone,'' even in cases not

certified as class actions.

The federal courts' power to issue such injunctions--which

are variously called ``national,'' ``nationwide,''

``universal,'' and even ``cosmic''--is now under fire. In

Trump v. Hawaii, Justice Thomas concurred separately to urge

the Court to take up the question of the legality of such

injunctions, suggesting that they are a modern innovation and

that they might fall outside the judicial power of Article

III courts. In 2018, the House Judiciary Committee of the

115th Congress released a markup of the Injunctive Authority

Clarification Act, which would curtail the authority of

federal courts to issue such injunctions.

In December 2018, the Solicitor General's Office called for

the Court to ``arrest'' this ``disturbing but accelerating

trend,'' which it cast as a ``rapidly expanding threat to the

respect that each coordinate Branch of our Nation's

government owes the others.'' In guidelines to Department of

Justice civil litigators, former Attorney General Jeff

Sessions referred to such injunctions as ``abuses of judicial

power,'' a ``threat[ ]'' to ``the rule of law,'' a ``danger

to our constitutional order,'' and a ``kind of judicial

activism [that] did not happen a single time in our first 175

years as a nation.'' Several states--including states that

earlier sought and won such injunctions--now contend that

``universal injunctions contradict the rest of Anglo-American

jurisprudence.'' The Trump White House, in its

characteristically measured tones, has hinted that the

practice is perhaps not beyond criticism. A growing vein of

scholarship concerning such injunctions has also developed.

This Article demonstrates that the universal injunction is

a tool with a more venerable lineage than heretofore

recognized. Surveying cases involving both state and federal

law and drawing on decisions by courts at all three levels of

the federal judicial hierarchy, this Article shows that

Article III courts have issued injunctions that extend beyond

just the plaintiff for well over a century. Building on this

lost history, this Article argues that the Article III

objection to the universal injunction should be retired and

that legislative efforts to outright strip the federal courts

of the substantive power to grant such injunctions should

halt.

Let us begin with the history. The universal injunction

against federal law did not ``emerg[e] for the first time in

the 1960s,'' as many critics of the universal injunction have

claimed. The Court itself issued a universal injunction in

1913, in the months preceding its opinion in Lewis Publishing

Co. v. Morgan, when it temporarily enjoined a federal statute

from being enforced not just against the plaintiffs but also

against ``other newspaper publishers.'' In the following

decade, the Court issued two other preliminary injunctions

that barred a federal law's enforcement beyond the plaintiffs

within a single judicial district, and in one of those cases

it specified that similarly broad final relief should issue.

Moreover, at least as far back as 1916, three-judge federal

courts issued injunctions against the enforcement of laws

that reached beyond the plaintiffs in those suits. The laws

thereby enjoined were state laws, not federal laws, but the

injunctions possessed the characteristic that matters most to

the Article III debate over the injunctive power: those

injunctions gave sweeping protection to nonplaintiffs who

would otherwise have been vulnerable to the law's

enforcement. When the state defendants in those suits

appealed directly to the Supreme Court--as procedural law at

the time allowed them to do--the Court on several occasions

affirmed the lower courts' injunctions, and sometimes did so

in single-sentence, unanimous, per curiam decisions. In one

important (though not unique) instance--Pierce v. Society of

Sisters--the Court affirmed a universal injunction barring

the enforcement of Oregon's compulsory public-schooling law

in a landmark precedent that remains good law to this day.

Not long thereafter, the universal injunction was brought

to bear upon federal agency action. In 1939, the D.C. Circuit

issued a universal injunction against federal agency action

in Lukens Steel Co. v. Perkins. That highly consequential

decree altered the federal government's purchasing activities

with respect to the iron and steel industries for a whole

year in the run-up to America's entry into World War II. When

the Supreme Court took up the case in Perkins v. Lukens Steel

Co., the Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing and

were thus not entitled to seek any kind of relief, the steel

companies' suit, the Court held, ``contains no semblance of

these elements which go to make up a litigable controversy as

our law knows the concept.'' Crucially, Perkins left intact

the propriety of injunctions reaching beyond the plaintiffs

as remedies in cases brought by plaintiffs with standing,

indeed, Perkins is bookended by decisions in which the Court

continued to approve that practice. In Hague v. CIO, less

than a year before Perkins, the Court affirmed an injunction

that protected those who acted in sympathy with the

plaintiffs from enforcement of a city law; in West Virginia

State Board of Education v. Barnette, shortly after Perkins,

the Court affirmed an injunction that reached beyond both the

plaintiffs' children and the alleged plaintiff class to

shield ``any other children having religious scruples'' from

a state law requiring students to salute the American flag.

This history has important implications for how we should

understand Article III. Today, critics of the universal

injunction contend that Article III courts should adhere--or,

as they sometimes frame it, revert--to the rule that

injunctions must be solely ``plaintiff-protective.'' They

have urged the Advisory Committee on Federal Rules to

create such a rule by amending the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedures. They have pressed Congress to institute such a

rule by statute--and indeed, the 115th Congress lately

considered doing just that, holding hearings on whether it

should forbid what the bill at issue styled as ``orders

purporting to restrain enforcement against non-parties''

in cases not certified as Rule 23 class actions. Justice

Thomas, as noted, has suggested that Article III may

forbid injunctions that reach beyond the plaintiffs.

We must be clear about one thing: it would be a sharp

departure from precedent and practice to treat Article III as

requiring the equitable remedial powers of federal courts to

be cabined in that manner. Article III confers a singular

power upon all federal courts to decide ``Cases[ ] in . . .

Equity.'' It does not allocate different types of equitable

remedial power to courts at different levels of the federal

judicial hierarchy, and it draws no line between state and

federal government defendants. That singular judicial power

must be uniformly interpreted, and its scope cannot sensibly

be regarded as hinging on the surmounting of hurdles to class

certification that were not created until 1966. If the

Supreme Court can issue a universal injunction against

enforcement of a federal law in a suit by a single plaintiff,

then so can a federal district court as an Article III

matter. If a federal district court issue a universal

injunction against enforcement of a state law in a suit by a

single plaintiff, a federal district court must also have the

power to issue such an injunction against enforcement of a

federal law as an Article III matter. There is only one

``judicial Power,'' and that power includes the power to

issue injunctions that protect those who are not plaintiffs.

Finally, some critics of the universal injunction have

invoked a strict form of originalism in support of their case

against that remedy. But the logic of that argument would

extend well beyond the universal injunction. At the time of

the Founding,

English officers were kept to heel not with injunctions

issued by the Chancellor in equity, but instead with common

law damages suits or ``prerogative'' writs (mandamus, quo

warranto, and so on) issued by the King's Bench--a common law

court. And American federal courts did not issue ``Young-

type'' injunctions against enforcement suits brought by state

and federal officers until well after the Founding. A

strictly originalist approach to the judicial power in equity

would therefore jettison not just the universal injunction--

it would equally undercut the propriety of an injunction that

protected just a single plaintiff from enforcement of even an

egregiously unconstitutional law by a government officer.

Such a straitened conception of the equitable power of

Article III courts cannot be squared with either a century-

plus of practice or with ``the implicit policies embodied in

Article III'' itself. Nor, fortunately, is that result

demanded by Grupo Mexicana de Desarrollo v. Alliance Bond

Fund, Inc., for that decision rested not only on the meaning

of equity in England in 1789, but also on how American

federal courts treated that concept in decisions extending

through the twentieth century. Measured by that yardstick,

the universal injunction against federal law is

constitutionally legitimate.

At bottom, the current debate over the universal injunction

is as much a debate over the proper role of the federal

courts as it is a debate over the arcana of equitable

remedies. May courts decide disputes only for the parties

before them, or may they declare the law for nonparties, too?

This Article's contribution to that evergreen debate is to

show how, in the period from 1890 to 1943, the law-

declaration model animated and guided the actions of federal

courts as they issued decrees on myriad questions of public

law. Expanding the frame of our inquiry even by this much

reveals that the injunction reaching beyond the plaintiffs--

and the law-declaration model of the judicial power that this

remedy implies--is not some late-blooming efflorescence of

post-Warren Court judicial hubris. Rather, it is a tool that

developed in tandem with, and in support of, the regime of

routinized judicial review of state and federal official

action that we continue to live under today. Our government

is not a monarchy, and our federal judges are not Westminster

chancellors; in no small part, the one has followed from the

other.

The Article proceeds in six Parts. Part I maps how the

current discourse concerning universal injunctions has

gerrymandered the analysis of judicial power and has thereby

cast undue doubt on the propriety of this remedy. Part II

explores how the Supreme Court in the 1890s endorsed an

expansive view of the powers of federal courts to control the

rights of nonparties through injunctive decrees. Part III

describes injunctions against enforcement of federal statutes

issued by the Court itself in the 1910s and 1920s and

examines their implications for the Article III analysis.

Part IV describes injunctions against enforcement of state

law issued by lower federal courts from the 1910s through the

1930s and then similarly outlines their implications for the

Article III analysis. Part V turns to federal agency action,

focusing specifically on Perkins and two cases involving

state and local laws that are important for understanding

Perkins; this Part spans the 1939-1943 period.

Mr. Speaker, the link to the entire document can be found here: https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/920- 1009__Online.pdf.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet.

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

Both Democrats and some Republicans have assailed the clearly unlawful nature of this trade war instituted by President Trump based on tariffs against the entire world except for Vladimir Putin in Russia, and Congress has the power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate commerce internationally. We have the power over tariffs.

The President purportedly is asserting powers under a statute which applies to emergencies in extraordinary and unusual situations. Then he said this has been going on for decade after decade.

Well, then how could that be an emergency? How could that be extraordinary and unusual?

There will be a lawsuit on this, and what our colleagues are saying is that if there is a bipartisan lawsuit that goes to court which stops these tariffs that are crippling businesses and farmers and wiping out people's retirements across the country, and if they succeed in one district, say, in Minnesota or Wisconsin or New York, you have to go to every one of 94 different districts in the country to get the benefit of that. That is what they want to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, nationwide injunctions are something that my friends across the aisle not only endorsed but took liberal advantage of in the last administration.

Remember Judge Matt Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas? They were lining up around the block to go forum shopping in his little district because he was the only judge to get cases against Biden there. Then Republicans praised the nationwide injunctions he issued.

The gentleman who just spoke signed a letter in praise of a nationwide injunction that was offered by Judge

Kacsmaryk. If the gentleman wants to change his position, fine, but please explain to us why the position has changed since the gentleman was praising nationwide injunctions in the last administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his astute observations there and say that Judge Kacsmaryk was reversed several times by higher courts.

We never came out and said, therefore, let's ban nationwide injunctions. We did say we should reform judge shopping and forum shopping. That is the real problem. Yet, it is not a problem if there is a nationwide crisis created by illegal action by an executive that a judge has the authority to counter that with an injunction and then it gets appealed up to the Supreme Court.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just to answer a couple of things raised by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my friend.

First of all, that is not what the Supreme Court said. The Supreme Court simply said that this was not a case that should be going through the Administrative Procedure Act under the Immigration and Nationality Act. It should be done through a habeas corpus in the district of confinement, in Texas.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the Supreme Court affirmed that there must be due process for people who were illegally taken out of this country and sent to El Salvador.

Secondly, the gentleman gives us a false choice when he says: Who gets to decide? Is it the person who puts his name on the ballot and goes out and campaigns, or is it an unelected Federal district judge?

Decide what? If we are talking about deciding the constitutionality of a law, obviously it is the judge under Marbury v. Madison. I know that the distinguished gentleman from the Committee on the Judiciary knows that the fact that Donald Trump beat Kamala Harris by 2 million votes is neither here, nor there.

Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by 7 million votes, and they still went to court pretty much on a weekly basis to try to get Joe Biden's legislation and his programs struck down. The majority believed in judicial review then. We should understand that it is very convenient for Republicans to say, all of a sudden, that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't believe in judicial review just because they have the Presidency.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has already rejected at least two of the actions that Donald Trump has taken since he got in. One was firing the executive director of the Office of Special Counsel. He was reinstated.

The other was reinstating a $2.1 billion aid grant that was essentially impounded and diverted by the administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Subramanyam).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Bell).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will answer my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, about the remarks he just made.

He is correct that the President, of course, like Members of Congress, must also interpret and enforce the Constitution. In fact, that is the core part of the President's job, to take care that the laws are faithfully executed, says Article II, not distorted or rewritten, but to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. That doesn't negate the fact that under Marbury v. Madison, it is emphatically the province and the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is in the event of an actual case or controversy.

The gentleman invoked George Washington. There is a beautiful portrait of Washington, the Trumbull portrait, that we have in the rotunda and it is a picture of George Washington surrendering his commission as the general of the Continental Forces, which Napoleon said made him the greatest man ever, that he could have stayed on as a dictator forever, and he gave up his power. He could have been President forever, but he gave up his power.

When we compare that to Donald Trump who is saying he is going to run for an unconstitutional and, yes, an illegal third term, that would be an illegal third term for him to run again to try to take office, so that is why we have courts in order to cabin the potentially limitless ambitions of Presidents. That is why we don't have kings; we have Presidents here.

Secondly, there seems to be a myth on the other side that if a President campaigns on something, then it is constitutional and the courts can't strike it down. So if the President campaigns on running again for a third term, then it is okay. Where does it say that in the Constitution? That can't be right. We are all bound by the Constitution no matter what we say during the campaign. A person could run around saying, ``I am going to be king,'' or if President Trump said, ``I will be dictator on day one.'' No, you will not be dictator on day one under the Constitution of the United States.

Why did the judge tell the administration to turn the planes around? Because of the two most beautiful words in the English language, ``due process.'' Because what they can do to noncitizens, they can do to citizens. If they can sweep anybody off the street and say we are going to send you to a torturous prison in El Salvador without any kind of hearing at all, it can happen to citizens as well as noncitizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman).

Mr. Speaker, listening to the debate, it occurs to me that Bonnie and Clyde and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid should have just denounced traditional activism and moved to change the Federal rules of civil procedure: Always better to blame the judge than to take responsibility for your own unlawful actions.

Mr. Speaker, I will close by quoting Thomas Jefferson who said during the time of the Alien and Sedition Acts: ``A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles.''

In the meantime, we are suffering the horrors and malignities of this period, but if the game runs against us sometimes as it will, we must have patience because it is a game where principles are at stake.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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, 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.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I call up the bill (H.R. 1526) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1526.

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

Madam Speaker, in recent years it has become glaringly obvious that Federal judges are overstepping their constitutional bounds under Article III of the Constitution which applies that lower courts are created under statute by Congress. Pursuant to congressional action, district judges are limited to the plaintiff before them that has nexus in their district.

Madam Speaker, in short, that means that a district judge needs to be confined to their district and to people who are in their district. Case after case, over decades, has shown that when they fail to do so, the cases are thrown out.

More importantly, if they were to continue to do what is generally called nationwide injunctions, then, in fact, there would be no need for a 5-4 or 6-3 decision by the High Court. The High Court of nine must reach a majority in order to make something the law of the land, and yet a single district judge believes they can make the law of the land.

Since President Trump has returned to office, left-leaning activists have cooperated with ideological judges whom they have sought out to take their cases and weaponized nationwide injunctions to stall dozens of lawful executive actions and initiatives.

Proof of that occurred just yesterday when, by a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, yet another judge's national ban was overturned.

These actions touch on many of the most critical issues facing our country, such as securing our borders, reforming insufficient and ineffective government bureaucracy, and strengthening our military.

Let me be absolutely clear. These sweeping injunctions represent judicial activism at its worst. Don't just take my word for it, Madam Speaker. As late as October of last year, the Solicitor General of the Biden administration urged the end of these practices, stating that, in fact, the Biden administration has to win every time, but the opposition only has to win one out of even one dozen cases. That is exactly the problem we are facing.

The Supreme Court regularly considers cases that are done in the ordinary course where one district judge, and perhaps a jury, rules one way and another rules another way, and the courts, through the appellate process, come up with a single law of the land. However, they do so looking at the arguments of both winning and losing, and they do so while the administration is not nationally and internationally banned.

National injunctions are being used to halt executive actions and executive orders not just for plaintiffs before the court but across the entire country, including individuals and entities that are not even parties to the litigation and, in many cases, may not favor the outcome and would not have been willing plaintiffs.

This undermines the system of government. It empowers individual, unelected judges to dictate national policy and to thwart the Constitution to take rights reserved to Congress and the President of the United States.

NORRA, the No Rogue Rulings Act, puts an end to this type of abuse. Under NORRA, we reaffirm the principles that district court orders can only bind parties before the court and not nonparties across the country. This reform will also discourage the growing trend to forum shop, Madam Speaker. If you can go to Hawaii because you can find a judge who will rule against an action taken here in the District of Columbia, then you will do so if you can get a nationwide injunction. If you can only enjoin individuals who may not even be affected by it, then there is no incentive to do so.

Madam Speaker, there are 677 current judge positions not including those on senior status. There are 677 individuals, each of whom can exceed their authority and stymie the legitimate actions of government. In some cases, these judges have even ordered the payment of amounts when the administration has determined that there is great risk of fraud.

During the last administration, they objected to this. They tried to stop it. Even in the last days before the election, the Biden administration was doing everything they could to accomplish what we are doing here today. In fact, there was even legislation in the last Congress authored by Democrats to do it.

This is not a partisan issue. It may be a timely issue for this President, but that does not make it partisan. To do the right thing at this time is critical.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the No Rogue Rulings Act and restore the constitutional balance and respect for separation of powers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO estimate for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Harris).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder).

Mr. Speaker, I did ask unanimous consent that all Members be able to place extraneous material in the Record. I guess they are taking me up on it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Schmidt).

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you can just consider that every time the other side speaks, they will be speaking in violation of our rules about disparaging the President, and you need not say it each time, I trust.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).

Mr. Speaker, I note that what the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert) is referring to is what has now been affirmed as an inaccurate decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. My colleagues on the other side, in disparaging the President, keep using the word ``illegal.''

I ask that my Democratic Colleagues really reconsider. The minority may disagree with the executive actions of the President. From time to time, the court may disagree. Yet, in fact, not only are his actions not illegal, but they are well within the reach of what any President might well do in trying to defend the United States from enemies, foreign and domestic.

We can disagree about the meaning of a law that has been on the books for 225 years. We should not disparage the motives or the actions of the chief executive simply because we disagree.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring down a little bit of the tone and remind everyone in this Chamber that the chief executive, since it was George Washington, has been charged by Congress to be the first to interpret the faithful execution of the Constitution and the amazing amount of laws that have been passed in our nearly 250 years.

During those decades, one after another, all the way back with Marbury v. Madison, there have been disagreements and the Court has interpreted, but those interpretations, including Brown v. Board of Education, historically became nationwide when the High Court by a majority ruled one direction or the other. That is the way our Founding Fathers intended it to be.

The ranking member of the full committee is a scholar and a teacher, a professor of this, and knows full well that we created under the Constitution a Supreme Court and then we gave to this branch, to Article I, to the Congress, the authority to create subordinated and specialized or limited courts. Those courts of any sort are under the Supreme Court because only the Supreme Court is to rule on the law of the land.

Now, my colleagues have noted the last administration and the fact that parties, including more than a dozen attorneys general, from time to time came and asked for and may or may not have been granted nationwide protection. This bill, as amended in committee, thoughtfully amended, in fact, takes into consideration that there may be times in which multiple States are represented before one judge. As long as that judge is the nexus of at least one, and in the case of the District of Columbia perhaps speaks for all, he or she should rule on behalf of all the plaintiffs represented in front of them.

Let it be clear: The work of the Supreme Court is not just to overturn one ruling by a judge. The Court most often in the 62 to 66 cases it takes per session, per year, rules primarily on when there is a difference between the ruling in one and the ruling in another. It rules very often because there needs to be a single voice for the law of the land.

There doesn't always have to be. The fact is, if a plaintiff comes and says they represent one of many unlawful aliens, criminals, or terrorists who have been deported under a law that has been on the books for more than 225 years, the judge has a right to rule if that defendant has a legitimate nexus in their court, has a right to rule as to that plaintiff or any others that come before him that have nexus, but to rule that the President must turn an airplane around with dangerous terrorists on it, why? Why would you do that?

The fact is, judges are shopped for. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, rightfully so, said that venue shopping has become a problem. That is not limited to Republicans or Democrats. In fact, both sides do it.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, they do it in civil cases. They do it all over the place. Lawyers are very good at it, but as the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and

the Internet and with the ranking member of the full committee here today, it is our obligation to fine-tune the law so that, in fact, these kinds of injustices don't happen. We are here today to fine-tune the law to protect the Constitution and the intent of Congress for more than 225 years.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday the Court ruled against the district judge by a 5-4 ruling undoing this whole question of does the President have the right to deport aliens. Yes. They said that there was a possibility of bringing a case in Texas as to one or more of them. To be honest, we have said that for quite a while that, in fact, there was a procedure and that, in fact, the chief judge of the D.C. circuit assigned himself four cases and made a decision that a chief judge should know better than.

Now, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said the right way to deal with a judge that makes a bad ruling is, in fact, appeal it. However, the right way to deal with judges who take cases, take another case, take a total of four cases so far, and seem to rule very predictably, even if inaccurately, against the Trump administration is, in fact, to rein in the excesses.

We try to do this in a measured way. I might note for the speaker that just today by a 7-2 overwhelming majority, the Court ruled, to no surprise to this Congressman, that the President has the right to dismiss probationary employees, even though an activist judge stayed that and said that he didn't have that right, that somehow everyone else can get rid of probationary employees, including the last administration that summarily dismissed immigration judges on the last days of the probationary period, and did so without seeing a nationwide injunction.

There were plenty of opportunities to disagree, but I hope that my colleagues, once again, as the speaker has so well stated, will stop claiming that these are illegal actions when we simply agree or disagree with the actions of the President and in many cases the Court finds the President is well within his rights in faithfully executing his obligations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the gentleman is prepared to close as am I, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as I close, since the ranking member so aptly named a couple of famous quotes and famous movies, I might call attention to the line: What we have here is a failure to communicate.

The other side, just a few months ago, supported this legislation in a more radical form than, in fact, we bring today. Thanks to Congressman Schmidt and others on the committee, we have thoughtfully amended this to make it limited, for which the ranking member and others seem to claim that we were somehow being nefarious. No, we weren't.

In the last cycle under President Biden, yes, half a dozen or so attorneys general came and disagreed with the attempt to forgive $188 billion in student loans. There was a temporary injunction on behalf of those multiple States. Lo and behold, the High Court stated and ruled that, in fact, he didn't have the authority, saving us nearly $200 billion that was being given away by Joe Biden.

Not in any way deterred by that, President Biden bragged that he circumvented it and did give away billions more. That is still something being worked on by this body.

Presidents push the limits of their authority. President Biden certainly did. President Obama famously said he didn't have the authority to do things and then did them later and dared the Court to stop him.

I think we have to come here and realize if we do our job, we are drawing the appropriate balance on one of the two branches that we do have an obligation to keep an eye on. We keep an eye on the executive branch, and the minority being the branch not of the President generally calls the strikes, the balls, and not the home runs. That is okay. They do it, and they have been doing it for 250 years. I commend them.

We also have an obligation to come together, to communicate, to not have a failure to communicate, to realize that on behalf of the American people, on behalf of the best interests of the High Court not being swamped with an amazing amount of these, and not having future Presidents find themselves deterred from executing what they believe is best in a timely fashion, that we come together and vote this moderate and, quite frankly, modest piece of legislation. It won't stop all national injunctions, but it will define more narrowly when they can be done. I hope we would do that.

I will close simply by saying Teddy Roosevelt sent the Great White Fleet out not necessarily having the money to get them back. Franklin Delano Roosevelt pushed the bounds of the Constitution for what he thought was right, including the incarceration of threats to our democracy under this very act, and the Court affirmed that.

Presidents have seen reasons to do it. This President has seen an onslaught, more than 10 million illegals, many of them actually here from terrorist gangs, and he is trying to protect our Nation.

I would hope that instead of talking about Elon Musk and others, we would come together to do something that we know if the next President is of the other party, my colleagues will be supporting something that looks amazingly like what we have in front of us today.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that all who are watching and listening take heed that this is a bill supported by the last administration and should be supported by everyone in this body.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 18) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions,'' and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this joint resolution of disapproval.

Today, we can protect consumers and ensure continued access to financial services by voting to nullify the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's disastrous rule on overdraft fees.

In a time burdened by the 40-year-high inflation, when many middle- and low-income households are living paycheck to paycheck, ensuring Americans have access to affordable credit has never been more important.

Overdraft protection is an optional service that financial institutions provide to help consumers avoid having purchases declined. Instead of the transaction being denied, the bank or credit union charges a flat fee to cover the check on behalf of that consumer. It lets that purchase proceed. It lets that payment to a utility company proceed. It lets that payment for an important rent or mortgage company to proceed, thereby allowing American families to take care of essential needs like that mortgage payment, rent payment, groceries, or gas before their next paycheck arrives.

Over the last decade, competition has driven financial institutions to lower their overdraft privilege fees to retain customers. Innovation has made accidental overdrafts less likely as many financial institutions now offer low balance alerts, automatic transfers from savings, and other tools to help consumers avoid being in overdraft and better manage their financial cash flow.

Competition and innovation, not government-mandated price caps, remain the best way to ensure consumers have access to affordable financial products and services.

Unfortunately, this CFPB rule undermines this very approach and threatens to restrict access to credit and overdraft privileges, which all of us should be concerned about.

The CFPB's rushed and haphazard approach to the rule is a clear example of how not to regulate. The CFPB made this decision before conducting meaningful research or considering the real-world consequences of its actions.

The CFPB's rule imposes a government-mandated price cap on what financial institutions may charge in the way of a fee for an overdraft privilege.

Like all price caps, this would reduce the availability of these very overdraft services, especially, Mr. Speaker, for consumers who have lower credit scores or are considered high risk.

By doing so, it effectively limits access to credit and that overdraft privilege for those who need it the most at the time they need it the most.

The CFPB's failure to consider the cost associated with this regulation, especially the real-world impact on consumers, their local community's financial institution, and the broader financial system only underscores the need to stop this price control before it is too late.

The CFPB also creates a false narrative of choice by suggesting that banks and credit unions can either offer an overdraft service at this federally mandated price fixed cost of $5 or comply with extending that as credit and, therefore, complying with the Truth in Lending Act. In other words, actually underwriting a consumer loan instead of simply offering the overdraft--simple, straightforward, fast, overdraft fee.

This redefinition of what products and services constitute credit thus is problematic, especially since Congress has already defined credit for regulatory purposes.

Even more troubling is the way the CFPB oversimplifies the costs of providing overdraft protection.

The rule only considers the cost of operating a call center and ignores the many other expenses involved such as ratifying and dealing with consumer disputes, mailing and postage for overdraft notices, third-party collection expenses, technology costs, and cost of regulatory compliance.

The reality is that these additional costs make it increasingly difficult for banks to continue offering overdraft protection. Many will simply choose to stop providing the service altogether. Those who will suffer the most from this are the very people the rule is designed to protect.

Mr. Speaker, in 2023, a survey found that 92 percent of customers who were aware their balance wouldn't cover a transaction preferred paying the overdraft fee rather than having their transaction declined. Not only is it inconvenient or potentially embarrassing in a particular situation, but it is also fundamental to in-between paycheck cash flow. They are making the decision to go into overdraft so they make that mortgage payment on time, despite buying clothes for back to school and trying to do Christmas shopping.

In my experience with my customers, over my many years of working with families, I never found one who was not a worthy steward of how to use these services.

Another survey found that 64 percent of customers think it is reasonable for a bank to charge an overdraft fee, and 72 percent feel these fees are justified, particularly when it helps them ensure timely payment of a much larger important bill, like a mortgage or rent.

In my experience of helping families across rural Arkansas for many years, as I said, managing their finances, they are pretty smart about how to do that, Mr. Speaker.

The truth is if the consumers lose access to overdraft protection, they will be forced to turn to alternative sources of credit that may be more expensive and riskier, have less consumer protection and documentation, and be less holistically handled than they would be at their home community financial institution or credit union.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution to restore common sense to our regulatory framework and ensure that consumers continue to have access to the financial services on which they rely.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say that the gentlewoman from California knows my respect for her and her leadership on our committee, but there is no effort here to raise overdraft fees in this resolution. It is quite the contrast. All we are saying is we don't need the Federal Government having a price cap on a product that is a very competitive product, with many, many banks not even charging for overdraft protection.

There is nothing hidden, Mr. Speaker, about fees on overdrafts. The Electronic Fund Transfer Act signed by this Congress made it clear decades ago that consumers must opt in to overdraft protection. Let me repeat that. Consumers select to do this. They shop for financial institutions online, down the street, whatever. They pick their credit union or bank to do business with. If they want overdraft protection to make sure that they are actually being protected on an extra payment or some bill they have between paychecks, they have it. It is completely spelled out.

Regulation DD in the Truth in Savings Act requires financial institutions to provide that information. Clearly, customers opt in to it.

Mr. Speaker, I promise you, I had it all through my early career when I couldn't make payments between paychecks. A young family, one income, lots of children, a lot of expenses, you do it. It is a good, prudent practice.

As a community banker for decades, I can promise you families were smart about it. There is nothing hidden about it. It is fully present. Consumers opt in to it, and the competition is intense to retain those customers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose), my good friend. Mr. Rose was the Commissioner of Agriculture in Tennessee before coming to Congress. He is a very active member of both the House Financial Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee. He has rural Tennesseans and their financial success at heart.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald), a greater leader there, a fine leader in this House on the Judiciary Committee, and an active member on the House Financial Services Committee.

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

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

Let me say that the gentlewoman makes a good point about financial management when it comes to late fees and accelerated interest rates on credit cards. That is why we are actually talking about overdraft protection today, because time and time again people take advantage of affordable, convenient, disclosed, not hidden overdraft protection so that their family can avoid a late fee on a credit card, which she just gave an excellent overview of her concerns about.

If we want to do that, then give people the financial tools that they have in overdraft protection without micromanagement from the Federal Government. Don't take my word for it or anyone on this side of the aisle.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that artificial price caps, like the one being discussed, being proposed by the CFPB on overdraft protection programs, reduced the supply, leading to fewer bank accounts for low-income families, period, full stop. I hear all the concern.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell). We are glad to have his voice in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Downing), a new member of the House Financial Services Committee. We are so delighted to have his expertise on our committee. He has a securities regulatory background. He was the State auditor. He serves on our committee and on the House Small Business Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Haridopolos), our new Member from the Space Coast.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the vice chairman of our full committee, who has such distinguished service on our committee. He is a leader in every way and also in the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Financial Institutions.

Mr. Speaker, he has his two top advisers with him, Eleanor and Mary Clay.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), who brings his entrepreneurship and State legislative practice. He is a former Congressman returning to the House Financial Services Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my good friend from California if she has any other speakers. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends on this side of the aisle who have worked hard today, Mr. Speaker, to convince everybody in this body that this is a serious overreach by the CFPB in a Federal price mandate.

Instead of letting consumers choose their financial institution and choose which one has the lowest overdraft fees and the best consumer accounts, instead we have the Federal Government trying to tell people what the price can be. It is Federal price-fixing.

What the opposition has argued today is that these fees are hidden. They are not. Consumers opt into this product, Mr. Speaker. They know what the fee is because it is disclosed to them. It is required by Federal law today to disclose it under regulation DD.

This is about access for overdraft protection. One of my colleagues called it overdraft protection insurance so that they don't make a mistake and miss a mortgage payment, a rent payment, or a utility payment that causes higher costs, higher fees, and higher interest rates.

Two-thirds of consumers support overdraft protection products. Two- thirds of consumers think a reasonable fee is appropriate. Competition has brought down fees for years. In fact, many large banks don't even charge for overdraft protection.

The assertion that consumers complain about this all the time, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I don't find the evidence to that. Even the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's own database shows that less than 1 percent of consumer complaints over this past decade even reference this kind of a product.

This is not a junk fee. This is an overdraft protection that helps millions of families across the country manage their payments and their bills between paychecks. It should be competitive and it should be accessible. We should vote ``yes'' on this resolution so that we agree with the Federal Reserve of New York when they say that to cap this fee to do price intervention here is to deny credit and deny this product to the hardest working families in America.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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