A joint resolution disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions".

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have to ask, Mr. Speaker: What the hell is the Republican majority doing?

I mean, last week, these guys canceled Congress and went home all because they don't want new moms or dads to be able to vote. So much for being the party of family values.

The gentlewoman just said that the Speaker is very much in support of family values, yet he has a problem with allowing new moms and dads to be able to vote by proxy. He seems to have no problem with Republican Members flying to the West Coast, filming comedy shows in Hollywood, and voting by proxy.

I mean, I don't get it. That is what family values mean to my Republican friends?

It took the Speaker a week--it took the Speaker a whole week--to buy off a few votes by offering a pretend deal. Now, Republicans are ready to move forward on the important legislative business of--wait for it-- passing the same bills they rejected last week, not that these bills are any better the second time around.

These bills include a bill that will make it harder for women to vote, a bill to let the Trump administration break the law, and two resolutions that stick it to consumers.

Honest to God, Mr. Speaker, who asked for these? Which Trump donor wrote these measures?

Meanwhile, what aren't we talking about on the floor right now? We aren't talking about the tariffs, not a peep about the tariffs, not a peep about the chaos in the markets, not a peep about the uncertainty this is causing, not a peep about how this is going to screw over middle America.

Never in my life have I seen anything like this.

The President promised lower prices and a booming economy, and we are going to get higher prices and a recession. This is nuts.

Trump isn't using tariffs strategically. He is launching an economic nuclear war, and we are all in the blast zone. This is a disaster.

Even if you agree with these tariffs, which is nuts, put that aside. Even if you are a fan, can just one Republican admit that it is insane that one guy is making this call alone?

Our Founders fought a revolution to stop one person from having this much power, and so-called conservatives are rewriting the rules to dodge a vote in Congress. This is crazy.

They are totally fine giving Trump unlimited power to do whatever the hell he wants, and they won't even let us vote. They won't even let us vote.

A few minutes ago, I sought recognition for a motion allowed under the law to bring a joint resolution to the floor to end just one of Trump's tariffs, and that request was denied because Republicans have rigged the rules. Let me repeat that. Republicans have rigged the rules, and I will talk more about that during this debate.

This is all because Republicans know what is coming, and they are scared. They know people are going to lose

their jobs. They know paychecks are going to shrivel. They know prices will go up, retirement plans will go down, and businesses are going to stop investing.

They don't want to have to go home and explain it. They don't want to have to put their names on that. They are rigging the rules so we don't have a vote.

Guess what. They can run from accountability, but they can't hide from the consequences.

You guys own this. You own the tariffs. You own the fallout.

There is no plan here, no strategy, just economic self-sabotage. Regular Americans are going to pay the price for these tariffs. This is a disaster for our country, and you guys are too chicken to even vote ``yes'' or ``no'' on whether you support the tariffs.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) will be happy to learn that it already is the law that only American citizens can vote in Federal elections. I am happy to send him the law so that he can understand that.

Our problem with the SAVE Act is that it is an attempt to make it more difficult for women who are U.S. citizens to be able to vote.

Talking about rigging the rules, again, there are four closed rules in this rule. For those who are tuning in, that means that we can't offer any amendments, we can't change anything, and we just have to take it or leave it. That is called rigging the rules so that Democrats and Republicans can't participate in the process.

Then there is a fifth measure in here. The gentleman who was just screaming on the floor helped lead the effort to get the Speaker of the House basically to go against the will of the majority in this House who wanted very much to have an up or down vote on whether or not we could allow new parents to be able to vote by proxy, so that they could actually stay home with their new baby for a brief period of time and be able to represent their constituents at the same time.

What is in this rule is a fake compromise, they call it. It is a nothing burger. It doesn't change anything. It doesn't help anybody. Basically, we can't debate or vote up or down on that. It is deemed passed. Magically, it is deemed passed in this rule if this rule gets a majority vote.

Mr. Speaker, not to mention what I was saying at the very beginning that Republicans have basically shut off any attempts to bring legislation to the floor to deal with President Trump's tariffs, which, by the way, are going to result in enormous cost increases for consumers.

Mr. Speaker, this whole House is being mismanaged. This whole House is being run in a way that, quite frankly, would impress Vladimir Putin. Yet, then again, maybe that is who they want to impress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen), who led the effort, along with Ms. Jacobs of California, to grant new parents the ability to be able to be good parents, to be able to be with their newborns and still be able to represent their constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me correct the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx). We are not voting on any kind of compromise here. It is being deemed. Republicans have it tucked into the rule so that we don't have a separate vote on it. We are not going to have a separate debate on it. Yet, that is one of the tactics used so that we can't actually talk about it on the House floor.

Secondly, paired voting, if it was such a good idea, why did we get rid of it 25 years ago? Basically, it is a glorified way to highlight to people that Members are absent and not here voting. Ms. Pettersen's vote won't count if she is not here.

It is just a stupid, ridiculous way to try to deal with the issue at hand, which is that new moms and dads actually should be able to be good moms and dads, stay with their kids at home, and be able to still represent their constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen) for any additional comments.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans should be ashamed of themselves.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, I laid out how Donald Trump's tariffs are causing chaos and hurting families. I will explain why we are unable to force a vote to block them here in the House, even though the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and the National Emergencies Act provide a process to terminate national emergencies through a privileged joint resolution.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the House Rules and Manual says here: ``A privileged motion to discharge a committee from further consideration of a joint resolution terminating an emergency is available after the measure has been referred to committee for 15 calendar days.''

A Member of this House, Ranking Member Meeks, introduced H.J. Res. 72, terminating the national emergency imposing tariffs on Canada, 34 days ago.

Earlier, I offered a motion to discharge his joint resolution from committee and bring it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, why wasn't it allowed?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, what I am just trying to figure out is whether it is in order in the House to move to discharge H.J. Res. 72 or H.J. Res. 73 from committee so that they can be considered on the floor.

I guess we are not going to get an answer.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't allowed because Republicans changed how time itself works in the House to prevent a vote on tariffs that is allowed under the law.

Mr. Speaker, I will be clear here because the stakes are very high. We are

talking about whether this House has the authority under the current rules to stop the President of the United States from imposing disastrous, calamitous tariffs that are causing economic chaos, raising prices for regular Americans, and causing uncertainty for businesses.

A motion to discharge Ranking Member Meeks' resolution is not allowed because Republicans literally changed the definition of what a day is to protect themselves from voting on tariffs.

Now, we should have been able to call it up after 15 days, but Republicans are pretending 34 days is less than 15 days. Republicans rigged the rules to protect Donald Trump, Mr. Speaker, and to protect themselves from voting on his tariffs.

H. Res. 211, which the Republican majority adopted in March, changed the operation of the calendar.

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I have the resolution in front of me and it says that each day for the remainder of the first session of the 119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to a joint resolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President on February 1, 2025.

So that resolution changed the operation of the National Emergencies Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, also known as the law, to make sure that Members of this House cannot force a vote on Trump's tariffs.

Is that right, Mr. Speaker?

In fact, that is right, Mr. Speaker. You may not want to opine on it, but the truth is, Republicans rigged the rules to prevent a vote on these tariffs, a vote that Members of this body would have been able to demand if we were following the law. I want to get to the bottom of why we can't vote on these tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the National Emergencies Act states that a joint resolution to terminate a national emergency passed by one House shall be referred to the appropriate committees of the other House at which point the 15-day clock would start if Republicans hadn't magically stopped time.

According to that provision in law, Senator Kaine of Virginia's resolution terminating the national emergency to impose tariffs on Canada which was adopted by the Senate last week in a bipartisan vote, but according to that, that bill must be referred to committee.

Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

Well, it is not relevant to the discussion because Republicans won't let us discuss the tariffs, but that is certainly how I read ``shall,'' Mr. Speaker. Senator Kaine's resolution to force a vote on Trump's tariffs has been sitting on Speaker Johnson's desk since last week.

Mr. Speaker, if a measure is held at the Speaker's desk, it is not subject to a discharge petition and we can't have an up-or-down vote on these tariffs. The Speaker of the House right now is singlehandedly preventing Members from forcing a vote on these tariffs, again, a right that is in the law.

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure I understand this. Why are Republicans rigging the rules to prevent a vote on Trump's tariffs?

Mr. Speaker, you might not want to answer and you might not like that I am pointing it out, but that is exactly what is happening here.

Republicans have rigged the rules by literally redefining the definition of a day to prevent us from voting on Trump's tariffs, and the Speaker of the House is locking the Senate resolution in his desk.

These are the types of procedural tricks that Republicans try to bury in the rules and hope that no one ever notices because they are too confusing or too in the weeds. Not only did we notice, Mr. Speaker, but we are going to make sure that the American people notice, too. One way or the other, the American people are going to render a verdict on what is happening here in this Chamber, and if it doesn't happen on this floor, you can be damn sure it is going to happen at the ballot box.

These tariffs are going to be a disaster and the fact that Republicans are too scared to stand up and vote for or against them just proves my point.

This is a disgrace. This is the people's House. We are supposed to debate serious issues on this floor, and the Republican leadership of this House is rigging the rules so we can't do that. That is absurd and that is a national disgrace.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, what you just heard from the distinguished Chairwoman of the Rules Committee is basically that the Republicans are too afraid to debate and vote on tariffs. That is what we just heard. What is really interesting is that in this rule that they are bringing to the floor, they have a bill that will actually raise bank fees on consumers, believe it or not. They want to give banks the authority to charge more for overdrafts. That is in this bill.

They are too busy to talk about the fact that Donald Trump is raising the cost of living and the cost of everything for average people in this country, but they are not too busy to talk

about having banks raise bank fees on citizens of this country.

This is so messed up it is hard to believe. Right now, if you talk to anybody in your district, if you did townhalls, which I know Republicans don't want to do anymore--but if you did townhalls, people are really nervous about not only the stock market and the uncertainty there, but they are really nervous about rising prices.

People are trying to make ends meet and they are really concerned about what is happening. Yet, Republicans are just too busy to talk about the impact of these tariffs on their constituents here in the House of Representatives?

Let that sink in, Mr. Speaker. This is ludicrous.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.J. Res. 91, a joint resolution to terminate the reckless tariffs that President Trump has put in place.

These tariffs are the largest middle-class tax increase in the last 50 years. Consumers are worried because their prices are skyrocketing and iPhone prices could go up as much as $350. Every American with a retirement account is worried because they are seeing their savings evaporate. The S&P 500 registered its worst week since March 2020 when Donald Trump, by the way, was also President.

Farmers are worried because the tariffs might put them out of business. Some of them are already renting out their land since they know they likely won't be able to make anything in 2025.

The result of all this needless chaos: less money in consumers' pockets, less confidence in our country, and less certainty about our future. That is why we must bring up H.J. Res. 91 to put Republicans on record, to let Congress do our jobs, and to keep our constituents' hard-earned money in their pockets.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I talked about all these issues last week. I talked about how I was opposed to the bill that raises bank fees on regular people. I talked about how their bill to make it more difficult for women to vote was a bad idea. I talked about the importance of helping new parents be able to vote by proxy.

Forgive me if I am not following your made-up rules, but we already discussed all this stuff last week.

When is the time that we are going to actually talk about the tariffs and about the fact that Donald Trump is raising prices on average people in this country? When are we going to have time to do that?

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

Mr. Speaker, gee, I wonder why this administration more than any other administration has so many injunctions against it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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

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

It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. The entire world is watching in astonishment as Donald Trump lights the American economy on fire.

Our voters deserve to know where their Members of Congress stand on these tariffs. I just tried to force a vote. I was shut down because the truth is they know this will be a disaster, and that is why they are blocking Democrats from demanding a vote.

Republicans don't want to lower costs anymore. They want to lower the standard of living, and that is exactly what these tariffs will do.

Now, let's be clear. Foreign countries don't pay the tariffs. We do. American businesses, American farmers, American families, that is who pays the tariffs, and unfortunately, the damage has been done.

Our trading partners are abandoning us. Our allies don't trust us. Our adversaries are laughing at us. The cherry on top is that Trump can't even explain the goal. He is slapping tariffs on everyone, including uninhabited islands but not on Russia, no tariffs on Russia. There are tariffs on Ukraine, but not on Russia. I am sure Putin is thrilled.

This is a gut punch to middle America. This is a tax on every single family in America. This is a disaster for our future. Congress needs to do its job. It is time for every Republican to put their name on this mess or finally stand up and stop it.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there is an awful lot of stuff in this rule before us. However, let's be clear about one thing that is happening with this rule today, and that is Republican leadership is trying to overturn the democratic process of majority rule.

Mr. Speaker, 218 Members of this House, a majority of us, signed a petition from Congresswoman Luna, who is a Republican, allowing new moms and dads to vote remotely in Congress. When 218 of us sign a petition, the House rules say it can be brought up for a vote. However, a backdoor provision slipped into this rule is being used to shut down that process. This is an unprecedented step. Literally, it has never been done before in the history of the House--never.

Mr. Speaker, if you signed Representative Luna's discharge petition, if you agree it deserves a vote, and if you agree that a majority of the House should have the ability to bring up legislation through the discharge process, then you have to vote ``no'' on this rule. It is that simple.

Let's go back to the drawing board. Drop this provision.

By the way, this isn't remote voting for everyone. It is very simply about giving new parents the option to vote remotely if they so choose. That is it. That is what the Republican leadership is killing.

When we get to the actual bills Republicans are advancing here, Mr. Speaker, who wrote these Republican bills? A Wall Street lobbyist?

One of them is literally about letting big banks raise their fees. Who the hell asked for that, the CEO of Goldman Sachs?

People are getting screwed by big banks, by the Bank of America, by Morgan Stanley, and by Wells Fargo. This is about whose side you are on.

At least Republicans are up front about it. They want to help Wall Street. Democrats fought to make sure that overdraft fees are capped at $5, and these guys come down here with a straight face telling America what? That letting banks raise fees is a good thing.

I mean, Republican math is that higher fees are good for you, Mr. Speaker. Really? Somehow we all should want to pay more fees to big banks? Is this a joke? Is this a bad joke?

This next measure that they have in this rule lets Big Tech off the hook when people get ripped off. Did Elon Musk write this one?

These guys are coming down here with a straight face and telling us that Big Tech needs less regulation and that they need less oversight. Is this an April Fools' Day joke?

Here is the contrast: Democrats actually fought to make sure Big Tech is held accountable when things go wrong on Apple Pay, Cash App, or Zelle and when people are hacked, scammed, or defrauded.

What do Republicans want to do? They want to let Big Tech off the hook. If you lose money, too bad, Mr. Speaker. If your data gets sold, too bad. Whose side are Republicans on?

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is not yours.

Maybe for April Fools' Day they could really change things up and actually stand up for working people. There is a crazy idea.

We have another bill to block nationwide injunctions when the government breaks the law. Here is a better idea: Why don't Republicans call up Donald Trump and tell him to stop breaking the law?

What an idea. Of course, it is a day that ends in Y, so Republicans are bringing to the floor a bill to take away peoples' voting rights.

Get this, Mr. Speaker, if you are a woman who changed her name after marriage, you will now need a certified birth certificate. However, if your

name is different than on that birth certificate, then you are going to have to come up with a whole bunch more documentation. Some of it will be costly.

Only Republicans would think voter disenfranchisement is somehow a good idea. This is all about making it more difficult for American citizens to vote. That is the real fraud. Donald Trump actually had a commission on voter fraud, and he disbanded it because he couldn't find any.

Republicans are defrauding American voters by making it more difficult to register. This stuff is right out of the authoritarian playbook straight from China, Russia, or Iran.

Republicans are acting like they are above the law. They are putting the rich and powerful first, undermining an independent judiciary, and undermining the right to vote. This is the road to authoritarianism, Mr. Speaker. Republicans are putting us in the fast lane to a dictatorship, and you can be damn sure that I am not going to be silent and that people on this side are not going to be silent. I am going to fight against these bills. I am going to fight to protect and uphold our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues here, both Democrats and Republicans, to vote ``no'' on this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I respect the gentlewoman from Florida for her courage and for standing up on behalf of doing the right thing. I wish more people in this Chamber would do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen), who is the author of the parental proxy resolution that is trying to be killed by today's rule. She is a new mom herself.

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

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

After listening to the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, my head is about to explode.

She talked about how disastrous it was when we had proxy voting during COVID. It was so disastrous that 162 Republicans actually voted by proxy.

She talked about how somehow it was unconstitutional, so unconstitutional that the current Speaker of the House, on multiple occasions, voted by proxy 39 different times.

She talks about people needing to show up to work. Well, people did show up to work and did participate in representing their constituents when we had proxy voting.

She doesn't seem to be that upset over the fact that Donald Trump conducts most of his business from the golf course in Mar-a-Lago. She doesn't seem to be very upset over the fact that the FBI Director, Kash Patel, is asking to work remotely from Las Vegas. She didn't seem that upset that there were people on the Rules Committee who used proxy voting to go to a CPAC convention to basically listen to political rhetoric from people on the extreme rightwing.

The bottom line is, Republicans love to talk about family values, but when given the chance to really support families, they turn their backs.

She talks about looking in Webster's dictionary, about the definition of ``congress.'' While she is at it, she should look up the definition of ``representation.'' There is nothing that says you shouldn't be able to represent your constituents because you just had a new baby.

The rule that we are considering right now is unprecedented because never in the history of the House has the Rules Committee tried to outright kill a discharge petition that was already signed by a majority of the House--never. This is precedent-setting.

Let me be clear: Discharge petitions are not a tool of the minority. That is true no matter how many times Republican leadership wants to say so.

In the past 30 years, before this month, a grand total of four discharge petitions have been sent by a majority of this House. Guess who introduced every single one of those four bills? Republican Members of a Republican majority. How did a majority of Republicans vote on those bills? They voted in support.

This isn't some Democratic tool that we use to make the other side take votes. This is a vital tool that has allowed Republicans with commonsense, bipartisan ideas to actually bring them forward against the opposition of their leadership.

By the way, even if you think this is a tool of the minority, once you set this precedent, that is it. Republicans are a few seats away from losing control of this Chamber. You might see this debate a lot differently in hindsight. If you want to protect your rights as Members of Congress, you should vote ``no'' here. You should especially vote ``no'' if you support the idea that new moms and dads should be allowed to vote remotely while taking care of a newborn.

Members worked across the aisle to draft a compromise version of remote voting for new parents. A bipartisan majority of this House signed a petition to bring this to the floor. Congresswoman Luna followed the rules, followed the rules that you set, the same rules that were in place when I was chair of this committee, the same basic rules that have been in place for a hundred years.

A majority of this Congress supports the Luna-Pettersen rule to allow new parents to vote remotely because it is common sense and because this is 2025, not 1925.

Members who stand with new parents and young families, Members who recognize we live in a modern world and don't show up to work with a horse and buggy, Members who believe in the democratic process, things like majority rule--what a radical idea--must defeat this antifamily, antidemocratic power grab of a resolution.

If you signed this discharge petition, you need to vote ``no'' on this rule. If you think it is important for individual Members to have any ability to move commonsense, bipartisan ideas forward, you need to vote ``no'' on this rule. A ``no'' vote is the only vote that lets that happen.

Congresswoman Luna convinced a majority in this House to support her idea. She deserves to get an up-or-down vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't blame the Speaker for not being able to answer the question of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith). I have been on the Rules Committee for a long time, and I, quite frankly, don't know what the hell he is talking about.

Mr. Speaker, none of us are saying that the rules can't be changed here. We are just saying they shouldn't be. In the House of Representatives, I don't know, but I thought the majority rules. I thought that was kind of an important standard that we all followed around here, but apparently not.

Apparently, according to my Republican colleagues who are now in charge, it is now the minority that should rule, that a minority of opinion who doesn't want to see things come to the floor can just block it and not even give people an opportunity to vote up or down.

I think this is a very dangerous precedent, and I think the majority is going to regret going down this road. Again, I hope that there are courageous people on the Republican side who will stand with Representative Luna and all of us and vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gomez).

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

Mr. Speaker, responding to the gentleman who just spoke, just because the gentleman yells doesn't make his vote count more. It certainly doesn't make him right.

Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump literally works from a golf course, and my friends on the other side of the aisle don't say anything about it. Yet, God forbid a pregnant mother be able to have her baby in the safety of her home and in her community and she votes by proxy. Somehow, the Republic will fall? Give me a break.

What the hell is wrong with the majority? This is ridiculous. This is ridiculous. This is coming from a group of people over there, many of whom voted by proxy during COVID, some of them multiple times. I don't have any patience for this.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order Representative Dexter's amendment to the SAVE Act, which prevents the bill from taking effect within a State unless that State certifies that the implementation of the bill would not lead to disenfranchisement of eligible married women voters.

I ask for unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't even know what the hell he is talking about.

Let me just say this: I never voted by proxy. I helped establish those rules during COVID, but I never did because I followed the rules.

The gentleman voted 63 times by proxy, including one time going to a rightwing Republican political convention. That was not following the rules. So much for being unconstitutional.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Moskowitz).

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

Point of Order

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let us not kid ourselves. This isn't just about overdraft fees, mobile apps, or voter registration requirements. This is about one political party, the Republican Party, which has made a deliberate choice to side with the rich and powerful over the people they were elected to serve.

Time and time again, Republicans have shown us exactly who they are.

They are not interested in lifting up working families. They are interested in protecting greedy corporations.

They are not interested or worried about making life easier for everyday people. They are worried about making life easier for the rich and the powerful.

The Republican vision for America is one where the rules don't apply to those at the top and the rest of us are left to fend for ourselves. That is very different from the Democratic vision for America because Democrats believe real freedom means economic security.

We believe opportunity means being able to pay your bills without being gouged by Big Bank overdraft fees. We believe consumers should be protected from fraud.

We believe that working people should come first, not Wall Street, not Silicon Valley, not MAGA billionaires who think democracy is optional.

We believe that this Congress ought to embrace the 21st century. Republicans are using this vote to block Representative Luna from offering her resolution to allow new moms and dads to vote by proxy in this Congress. This is a huge change to centuries of precedent. They are taking power away from a majority, a majority of Members of the House, by blocking a bipartisan resolution.

Let me be crystal clear: A minority of this Chamber is upending what a majority in both parties wants.

I get it. Some of you are obsessed with copying authoritarian regimes, but guess what. We are not in a dictatorship, and Republicans and Democrats should reject this cowardly change.

The American people are watching. They, quite frankly, don't understand the rationale that my Republican colleagues put forward about why new mothers and new fathers have to be here in person while making comparisons to doctors who are operating on patients.

We are casting votes. We are casting votes.

Representative Pettersen, having just given birth to a new baby, should be able to represent her constituents from her district in the safety of her community and in her home.

What the hell is the big deal? Do you think the world is coming to an end? The people who are complaining the loudest are the ones who abused proxy voting when we had it during COVID.

By the way, news flash, everybody: There is a Member of the Republican Party who voted by proxy to do a comedy show on the West Coast just a few months ago, and they all know about it. There is no accountability. There is no one holding anybody to account for that, basically, voter fraud, but they are here on the floor today complaining about new mothers and new fathers being able to vote by proxy.

This is absurd. This is absurd. The American people I know are disgusted by what they are hearing here today. The American people are watching.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this outrageous, antidemocratic rule. I ask my Republican colleagues to stand up and show some courage today because what you are doing today, what the leadership is doing today, is basically precedent setting.

This will come back and haunt you at some point. Don't ruin these precedents. Don't ruin these traditions.

Let's build an economy and a democracy that works for everyone. Vote ``no'' on this rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 294, providing for consideration of four measures: S.J. Res. 18, disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''; S.J. Res. 28, disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications''; H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025; and H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.

House Resolution 294 provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28, both under closed rules, with 1 hour of general debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and rank minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees and provides each one motion to commit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

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

Finally, the rule provides that H. Res. 293 is hereby adopted and provides that House Resolution 164 is laid on the table.

The rule before us today provides Congress with yet another opportunity to stand for consumer choice and business innovation in our Nation. It provides an opportunity to defend the integrity of our elections, and it provides for a historic opportunity to rein in rogue judges and return public policy decisions to their rightful branches of government.

H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office.

The only people who should vote in American elections are American citizens. There should be no debate or question about that. The SAVE Act adds additional layers of protection to elections right here in our own country. It is an opportunity worthy of bipartisan support.

H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, would limit the authority of district judges to provide sweeping injunctive relief on a nationwide or exceedingly broad scale.

As of late, we have certainly seen a slew of rulings by rogue judges that surpass their own constitutional authority. Americans are rightfully concerned about this very issue.

Let me be clear. This is judicial warfare in the flesh. Without question, exceeding constitutional mandates as a matter of judicial philosophy does nothing more than blight justice itself.

S.J. Res. 18, a Congressional Review Act resolution, would overturn a midnight rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, that undercuts the ability of lower-income Americans to access liquidity.

To put it very simply, this CFPB's rule hurts the very consumers that it purports to protect.

One of the likely outcomes of this rule being fully implemented would be low-income Americans being expelled from the financial system entirely due to lack of overdraft protection. It is time that we add this midnight rule to the burn pile.

S.J. Res. 28, another Congressional Review Act resolution, would overturn another CFPB rule that unjustly shackles private-sector companies that operate within the digital asset marketplace.

This rule is billed as a ``consumer protection'' mechanism, but what it really does is misclassifies an entire segment of digital products with the aim of regulating them straight into the ground. The CFPB overstepped its regulatory authority in its pursuit of subjugating the American economy in the name of consumer protection. This is another misguided rule that we must render null and void.

Mr. Speaker, before I reserve, I want to take a moment to recognize the good faith efforts of Speaker Johnson in helping maintain a strong family-centric posture here in the people's House.

Leading from the front and building consensus are not always easy endeavors. All of us understand this to be true. However, when done in the right ways and for the right reasons, like what the Speaker has done, we get positive resolutions.

It is obvious that we have a critical mass of Members on what I consider an existential question for this body and that the related discharge effort derailed our agenda for a short time. However, we are back at our post, and our objective right here and now is to move forward.

At the end of the day, our eyes must remain affixed to our very own North Star. Our North Star is governance, Mr. Speaker. Deviating from governing does not serve the American people, nor does it make good on the mandate they entrusted us with.

The compromise agreement of dead pairing that was formulated and led by the Speaker and others is grounded in existing precedents, practices, and, ultimately, common sense.

This is a viable pathway forward that meets two critical imperatives. It allows the clockwork and business of this body to remain unabated while extending due deference to our own majority's own governing principles.

It is not the prerogative of this Republican majority now, nor will it ever be, to use tools of the minority to secure legislative victories. Republicans are the ones manning the helm here, and we must act like it.

In addition, I will add that I firmly believe, as do many others, that Speaker Johnson's work in addressing the concerns raised last week and taking sizable steps to further intertwine rock-solid family values into the fabric of this House are very commendable.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the solution we are going to vote on today to allow mothers and fathers to continue to represent their constituents and to be able to cast their votes is a great solution. It is one that existed in this Congress before. It is a tried and true method. It broadens the ability of people to vote when they cannot be here to vote. We have had situations where we have had people rolled in on gurneys to be able to vote.

Mr. Speaker, this is a much fairer way to do this in the way that we are doing it now.

I also remind my colleagues who are speaking against or saying we are not dealing with the tariffs issue is that former Speaker Pelosi, Senator Schumer, and other Democrats railed against Chinese tariffs years ago but did nothing about them. They even supported President Biden's preserving of the tariffs from the Chinese most recently, and they said nothing about it here.

President Trump is doing something about the tariffs. He is responding in ways that will strengthen the international economic position of the United States and protect American workers. He is showing leadership where the Democrats have shown none.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to be ashamed of. We are here solving problems for the American people every day. We are responding to what we were asked to do in the last election.

I just point out to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that Republicans had a majority in the 118th Congress, the most recent Congress. We are now in the 119th Congress.

We deemed only two items that were passed in the Committee on Rules. In the 117th Congress, when the Democrats controlled the Congress, they deemed 38 different items as passed in the Committee on Rules.

There is an old saying, Mr. Speaker: ``Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we are not afraid to debate tariffs, but we have four bills to debate here today. That is the business that we need to be dealing with.

I will point out to my friends, again, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

The Democrats love to claim foul on Republicans shutting off national emergencies, but perhaps they should reconsider given their own record when it comes to tolling day counts.

They want to claim that Republicans are stopping time, but perhaps they forget just a few short years ago, in the Democrat-controlled 117th Congress, their own House rules package, H. Res. 8, conveniently stopped time for both legislative and calendar days regarding a myriad of processes.

Let me read, Mr. Speaker, from their rules:

``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. 1546.

``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not constitute a legislative day for purposes of clause 7 of Rule XIII.

``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not constitute a calendar or legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of Rule XII.''

Now, what is this, the pot calling the kettle black? I am just not sure of that. I do think it is important, though, to remind our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this happened. Mr. McGovern wants the country to know what is going on here. We want the country to know what is going on here, too.

Let me say that this is a package that all four minority members of our committee voted in favor of, by the way. These manipulations were maintained for nearly 18 months in subsequent rules with continued support by the committee's minority counterparts.

Similarly, when it comes to the National Emergencies Act, in a rule they permanently blocked votes terminating the COVID national emergency, despite Mr. Gosar introducing two separate disapproval resolutions.

Mr. Speaker, be careful what you accuse us of because we have the facts and the record on our side.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Reading Clerk told us what we were here to do today. In my opening remarks, I read out what it is we are here to do today. We have a rule, and then we are going to have four bills to vote on. That is what we are here for.

Our Democratic colleagues are desperate. They do not want to talk about this rule and what it does or the underlying bills. They want us to try to look at shiny objects over here, Mr. Speaker, that have nothing to do with what we are here to do today.

What Republicans want to do is focus on what we are here to do today. We could talk about tariffs sometime, yes. We are happy to do that, but let's talk about what we have to do here.

The Democrats don't want to talk about these because they correct issues that the Biden administration did wrong, these midnight rules of the CFPB. They don't want to talk about the rogue judges who have been overruled by the Supreme Court. They don't want to talk about what is happening here and now. They want to try to distract the American people with other issues.

Mr. Speaker, let's deal with the issues at hand. Let's focus on those, do our job as Members of Congress, and get on with our business today.

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

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

I am going to take a little time to address the importance of the No Rogue Rulings Act and why the American people are demanding action against this unchecked abuse of nationwide injunctions.

The fact is activist liberal judges have been utilizing nationwide injunctions in an unprecedented fashion. There have been 17 identified cases in which Federal courts issued nationwide injunctions between January 20, 2025, and March 27, 2025, against the Trump administration.

Compare this to the 19 injunctions issued during the entire Obama Presidency, 8 years, Mr. Speaker. Fifty-five such injunctions were issued against the first Trump administration, 4 years, Mr. Speaker. If we look back to the Presidency of George W. Bush, only 12 nationwide injunctions were issued in 8 years. Some estimate that only 27 nationwide injunctions were issued in the 20th century. This exponential increase demands action.

Nationwide injunctions frequently extend far beyond the immediate parties in a lawsuit, affecting entire populations and jurisdictions not involved in the original dispute. These overreaching rulings create significant uncertainty about Federal policies, drain taxpayer resources, and embolden unelected judges to subvert the will of the American people by thwarting the democratically elected President and Congress.

Article III authorizes Congress to determine what types of cases inferior courts have jurisdiction to review. In some past cases, Congress has exercised this power by stripping Federal courts of jurisdiction to hear certain classes of cases, but that drastic action is avoided in this legislation. Instead, it takes a very measured approach. The bill would curtail the scope of injunctive relief but still allow for nationwide injunction under the appropriate circumstances.

Injunctions would still be permitted. What won't be permitted is having an activist judge from a liberal enclave in the country impose a decision that goes far beyond the subject presented before him or her in the courtroom.

The American people shouldn't be robbed of exercising their policy preferences by judicial extremism, and it would apply evenly to future Democratic and Republican administrations alike.

The policies being put forth by the Trump administration are novel, creative, and bold. That is what the American people expected when they voted for President Trump. Just because a policy is untested or unprecedented doesn't mean it is illegal. Democrats may impugn President Trump all they want, but these fundamental constitutional concerns are best settled at the appellate level.

This legislation does nothing to affect the proper avenues for constitutional challenges. Congress has always reserved this power to bring order to the judicial branch. We simply want to impose some order on the chaotic episodes unfolding in our courts.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to respond about the fact that we are denying new mothers and prospective mothers the opportunity to vote with this legislation. That is just not true. It is going to need to be refuted over and over again.

What we have done is accommodate not only prospective and new mothers but we have also accommodated other Members who might need that accommodation. Let me be clear about that. That is absolutely true.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans remain laser focused on governing and advancing legislation that addresses pertinent issues across the Nation. Our foot is placed firmly upon the gas pedal of solving problems the American people want us to solve.

The four pieces of legislation that will be considered under this rule are part of our governing efforts and are in alignment with the mandate that Americans gave us last November. Shielding consumer choice, protecting consumer choice, and combating foreign influence within higher education in America are issues that Americans care about. We have heard their concerns, and we are addressing them yet again this week.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 282 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise for a parliamentary inquiry.

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

That is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

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

There you go.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, 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.