Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee report (H. Rept. 119-199) to accompany House Resolution 580 should have included in its waivers of all points of order against consideration of H.R. 3633 and S. 1582 a disclosure of the following violation:

Section 303 of the Congressional Budget Act which prohibits consideration of legislation providing new budget authority, a change in revenues, or a change in the public debt limit, for a fiscal year until the budget resolution for that year has been agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 590 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 to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the underlying legislation. This evening, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 590, providing for the House's consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 4, the Rescissions Act of 2025. Passage of this Rule will send H.R. 4 directly to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, if you told the American people that wasteful spending overtook Washington during the Biden-Harris administration, they would not be surprised. Their jaws would not drop, and their pupils would not dilate in utter shock.

The American people saw the fiscal ruin that was created by the previous administration. That is why they overwhelmingly chose Republicans to lead the Nation and restore fiscal sanity. That restoration is here, Mr. Speaker. H.R. 4 is part of our efforts to get Washington's fiscal house in order.

H.R. 4 rescinds $9 billion in spending that the President has identified as wasteful and unnecessary. As I said in the Rules Committee, it is unfortunate that the Senate was not able to execute all of President Trump's recommended rescissions. That said, there are many pertinent rescissions that remain, and they are very impactful.

Now, our Democrat colleagues will scoff and say that this $9 billion we are clawing back is a drop in the bucket; that it is merely peanuts. That is where they are wrong, Mr. Speaker. The thing is that in their arguments against H.R. 4, Democrats can only grasp at straws. Their positions are weak, and their claims are even weaker. They will talk in circles and just bloviate. In the end, they simply don't make any points that are worth remembering. They will rail against H.R. 4 so much that they say absolutely nothing.

Here is the truth. If this rescissions package was not put forth and passed by Congress, taxpayer dollars would still be funneled to ideologues at PBS and NPR and taxpayer dollars would continue to be funneled to all manner of foreign aid repositories that do not align with the fiscal sensibilities and values of the American people. That money, the people's money, would continue to be squandered. That is the truth of the matter.

Republicans understand that $1 of taxpayer money wasted is $1 too many. We must pass this rescissions package and send it to the President so that we can continue our work and continue to secure wins for the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean).

Mr. Speaker, two words from me: Low energy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority leader.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, give me a break. Republicans are finally offering taxpayers relief from years of spending from Democrats. Again, with President Biden they expanded the Federal Government with an unprecedented $11 trillion in spending, $6 trillion of which has been added to the national debt. It needs to end. We voted to end it in H.R. 1. We are ending it in this package here today, and we won't stop fighting for taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), who is one of our most eloquent speakers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), who is a Rules Committee member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gill).

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

Here we go again, not talking about the subject at hand but trying to distract people. It is the same old, tired song and dance. Our friends revert to demonizing and misrepresenting the big, beautiful bill. They say you can't make this stuff up, but that is what they do.

We are having one success after another, and it is driving our friends across the aisle to distraction.

When they had full control of the levers of power just a few years ago, they expanded the Federal Government with an unprecedented $11 trillion in spending, $6 trillion of which has been added to the national debt.

What is most revealing is their refusal to articulate a single program, a single outlay, or a single area of Federal spending they want to reduce on behalf of taxpayers. They want every single dime of taxpayer money, and they don't like the historic cutting of $1.6 trillion in waste, fraud, and abuse in H.R. 1. They can't stomach the $9 billion here in this discretionary cuts to wasteful spending. There is no upper limit to the amount of taxpayer dollars they will throw at their government-centered schemes.

How about a million? Can democrats articulate a cut to Federal spending in the amount of a million? How about in the thousands, like the $500,000 for electric buses in Rwanda or the $8,000 for promoting vegan food in Zambia that we are cutting now? They can't do it, and that is very unfortunate because it has dire consequences for our Nation.

The fact is, we can't work in a bipartisan fashion to cut Federal spending anymore, and that wasn't always the case. Our colleagues are addicted to a tax-and-spend formula that has been bankrupting our government.

But we won't stand idly by. We won't wait on Democrats to take their heads out of the sand or wake up from this woke-induced coma. We are taking bold action at every level and in every facet of the Federal Government to get our Federal spending under control. We will do it $8,000 at a time when we have to or $1.6 trillion at a time when we can. We have been given this mandate, and the American people are counting on us.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967, which mandates that all public broadcasting programs must demonstrate strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs. There are a myriad of statistical studies that prove that they are not.

Perhaps most damning for NPR is the fact that it had to utilize a $1.9 million Federal grant to ``improve objectivity and diverse viewpoints'' last year. This is despite the fact that NPR's CEO recently testified, as our colleague said, that she didn't witness any bias at the organization. Then why the need for the Federal grant?

The problem with the Public Broadcasting Act is that it lacks an enforcement mechanism, so we will go with our constitutional prerogatives here to enforce the law. It starts with the rescission of funding.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are far from weak. We are doing what the American people want us to do, and that is to let them keep more of their money and not take it and let unnamed bureaucrats spend it on their behalf.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite ready to close, but will be shortly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington), the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, all night, our colleagues across the aisle have been talking about what we are not here to discuss, which is this rescissions package. They keep trying to distract the American people with things that we are not here to talk about.

The American people do not want to see their hard-earned tax dollars being squandered, not one bit. At its core, H.R. 4 is about shutting off the spigot of wasteful money, clawing back the tax dollars of Americans, and ensuring that wasteful and unnecessary spending is uprooted and left to wither and die.

It is just that simple. That is all there is to it. With more rescissions packages on the horizon, the President and Speaker have indicated that the best is yet to come.

We are doing our job to help save the American taxpayers' dollars. We know how hard it is to earn those dollars, and we don't want to see them squandered.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Tawanda Dickens, who is a civilian employee with the United States Capitol Police.

Ms. Dickens, as most of us call her, will be retiring in August after many years of remarkable service. Her work is often unseen, as she covers the late-night shift within the Capitol complex, but I, along with many others, agree that her work makes a real positive difference to those of us who know her.

I am so fortunate that Ms. Dickens not only helped me often, but, as she did with many, many others, she befriended me. She is someone who is a friend to many here in the people's House, and she is respected by all who know her.

I congratulate Ms. Dickens on her well-deserved retirement. May God continue to bless her and her family as she enters this new and exciting chapter of her life.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the underlying legislation. The four separate measures being considered under this rule all have a singular commonality. They serve to put American interests first, where they should always be.

All of us can agree that within the global markets, and on the global stage, America must always remain competitive and stand tall. That is not sometimes. That is not occasionally. That is not part of the time. That is always.

From protecting consumer privacy to ushering in a new era of financial innovation, providing for the common defense of the Nation to strengthening the dominance of the American dollar, these pieces of legislation are as consequential as they are vital.

This is the caliber of legislation that the American people expect our Republican majority to deliver. Republicans here in the people's House continue to exceed that mark. We have done it many times before, and this week, we will do it again.

One of the four bills being considered under this rule is H.R. 4016, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2026. This legislation provides for appropriations for the DOD for the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2026.

Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that Congress' first solemn responsibility, one of many, is to provide for the common defense of the Nation.

In total, H.R. 4016 provides $831.5 billion and adheres to the budgetary top line put forward in the President's FY26 budget request.

Consider for a moment the provisions contained within this legislation that uphold Congress' responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, there is $189 billion for Active-Duty, Reserve, and National Guard military personnel, which is $6.6 billion above the fiscal year 2025 enacted level. There is an increase of 3.8 percent in basic pay for all military personnel beginning January 1 of next year. There are sizeable investments in research and development, procurement efforts, and operation and maintenance.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the four underlying measures, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 566 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in favor of consideration of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is: Should the House now consider House Resolution 566? Though the resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the motion to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1, the Committee on Rules is not aware of any violation of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, nor has the Congressional Budget Office identified any violation of the act.

The reason for this motion is plain and obvious. It is not a legitimate attempt to question consideration, but simply a dilatory tactic to further delay consideration of this historic legislation and to give the Democrats more time to mislead Americans.

We must dispense with this question of consideration so we can move the process forward and enact the agenda President Trump and the American people have demanded.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of consideration of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, 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 to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans stand ready to deliver H.R. 1 directly to the President's desk for his signature.

Late last year, the American people rallied en masse behind the Republican vision for a renewed Nation. It is a nation no longer blighted by the cataclysmic failures of the previous administration, and a nation primed and ready to enter the golden age.

One of the many strong reinforced byproducts of our Republican vision is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It is one of the most consequential pieces of legislation that any party has ever passed and for good reason.

The provisions interwoven in this legislation are monumental. They are what the American people voted for in November: historic tax relief for working families; massive investments to secure our Nation's borders; capturing generational savings; and slashing waste, fraud, and abuse in government programs so that they may run more efficiently for those who truly need them.

Mr. Speaker, I could opine at length about the wins that Republicans have secured in this bill, wins that we have been highlighting to the American people for months. Meanwhile, our Democratic colleagues have resorted to fear-mongering and wailing from their bully pulpits in the hopes of deceiving the American people.

For months, we have heard Democrats claim that the sky was falling, that all hope is lost because H.R. 1 will bring about the end times, and a litany of other outlandish and absurd claims. They are so desperate to smear H.R. 1 and deny the American people the policies that the American people overwhelmingly voted for in November.

Let's again focus on what this bill accomplishes. It yields the single greatest cut in wasteful government spending in congressional history by slashing far more than a trillion dollars of bloat. It preserves the greatest battle-tested set of tax cuts for working families that our Nation has ever seen or our economy has ever realized. It doubles down on the border priorities of the most successful enforcement efforts by a President in our Nation's history. It realigns our economy in defense of American workers, American energy, American businesses, and American job creators to unleash the engines of our economy, raise the tide of our economic standards, and bring a new definition of American greatness to the world.

Perhaps the reason why Democrats are so desperate to smear this legislation is because they are caught in their own self-inflicted malaise of denial. Perhaps they still can't accept that Americans chose Republicans to lead the Nation instead of them.

That said, Mr. Speaker, Republicans are not distracted by that fear- mongering and doomsaying of those who want H.R. 1 to fail. The facts are on our side, and we have been cutting through the noise by bringing those facts to the American people for months.

So that the record is clear, a vote against this legislation is a vote to green-light the largest tax increase in American history being levied against everyday men and women, to decimate millions of jobs across America, and to kneecap the capabilities and readiness of the Nation's military. This is not fear-mongering like what our colleagues across the aisle have been engaging in. These are just facts.

Mr. Speaker, the pathway forward is crystal clear. The House must pass this rule and pass the Senate amendment to H.R. 1 so that more wins can be delivered to the American people. The American people deserve to keep winning, and to deny them that opportunity is a flagrant disservice.

This legislation is the embodiment of the America First agenda, and we would all do well to remember that. Failure at this critical juncture is not an option. This clock is ticking. The President and the American people are waiting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Haridopolos).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say nice try to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Kennedy).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baumgartner).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues continue to rail against commonsense community engagement requirements, which require able- bodied adults without an exemption to spend 20 hours per week working, volunteering, enrolling in school, or participating in a work development program.

Let's be perfectly clear. These work requirements apply only to able- bodied adults without young dependents who don't have a disqualifying condition.

Individuals who are exempt from these requirements include pregnant women, individuals under the age of 19 or over the age of 64, foster youth and former foster youth under the age of 26, members of Tribes, individuals who are considered medically frail, and individuals who are already in compliance with the work requirements under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, TANF, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP.

The list goes on, but our priority remains the same. It is to root out waste, fraud, and abuse and to strengthen and sustain Medicaid for those for whom the program was intended to serve: expectant mothers, children with disabilities, the poor, and the elderly.

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

Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate, and I do not yield for that request.

Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate. I do not yield for that request.

Mr. Speaker, I do not yield.

Mr. Speaker, wow, that gambit was riveting.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding us of the language we should be using in this Chamber.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the President has said numerous times, there will be no cuts to Medicaid. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act protects and strengthens Medicaid for those who rely on it--pregnant women, children, seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families--while eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act removes illegal aliens, enforces work requirements, and protects Medicaid for the truly vulnerable.

For our colleagues on the other side who say illegal aliens are not receiving this, we understand that 1.4 million people do not meet citizenship and immigration status requirements for Medicaid enrollment but would be covered under current law and programs funded by the States. We know that because we have a CBO score.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

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

People who have supported the Democratic Party policies for years cannot come to this floor and question the morality of Republicans.

President Trump has his pen in hand and is waiting for the House to complete its work. We have championed this legislation for months, have guided it through the appropriate processes, and now we are on the 1 yard line.

America deserves to move even further into the golden age. H.R. 1 unlocks the opportunity to do that. It is time to get this done.

Let's be crystal clear about the content of this historic bill. We are restoring our borders once left defenseless and without redress. We are protecting our great Nation by investing in our military and military families. We are preserving tax cuts that made the United States economy the envy of the world just 8 years ago. We are reviving our Nation's fiscal outlook by finally cutting wasteful spending and unleashing our economy from harmful restraint--restore, protect, preserve, and revive. The failure to act would yield only the opposite.

Our Democrat colleagues would tear down the border wall and return us to open-border policies. They would have us oversee a continued decline in our military readiness despite unprecedented theaters of global conflict. They would destroy our economy in their unending appetite for continued tax increases to feed their spending binges.

Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear. We must deliver. We must deliver a renewed, restored, and revived Nation and grant voters the America they stood for just 8 months ago.

Mr. Speaker, in a moment, I will offer an amendment to the resolution, which would correct a technical error in the rule.

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

Amendment offered by Ms. Foxx

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the resolution, as amended.

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

previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 499 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 to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and of the underlying legislation. Yesterday, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 499, providing for the House's consideration of H.R. 4, the Rescissions Act of 2025.

This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4 under a closed rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their respective designees, and provides for one motion to recommit

Additionally, the rule provides that House Resolution 492 is hereby adopted.

Mr. Speaker, before we get into the substance of the bill today, I would like to clear up any confusion about any remarks I made in the Rules Committee last night.

Let me be crystal clear. I encourage all Members to support the rule before us today. My comments last night were lacking in context. Democrats made the argument throughout the hearing that this process is somehow another vote on H.R. 1. That is false.

The resolution today makes purely technical changes to protect the privilege of the reconciliation bill as it heads to the Senate.

It is not a redo or relitigation of any underlying policy issues in the bill.

Let me repeat: There are no policy decisions included in this engrossment correction.

That is what the Senate is working through, and I look forward to considering H.R. 1 when the bill returns from the other Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans remain on a positive, forward moving trajectory in delivering upon the American people's mandate from November. Just a few short weeks ago, we passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

This week, we are taking up a nearly $10-billion rescissions package, and soon we will be moving into the appropriations process.

Discretionary waste is about to be put through the congressional shredder.

Mr. Speaker, the American people demand that this happens. Now our colleagues across the aisle will leap to their feet and scream bloody murder about how the waste we are targeting simply doesn't exist and how we are laying siege to everything under the Sun.

Au contraire. We have the receipts to back everything up.

Here is just a small sampling of the mind-boggling discretionary waste that we will be slashing in foreign funding:

$158 million from the Lebanon peacekeeping mission which has been fraught with waste and abuse as evidenced by its abject failure to contain Hezbollah;

$3 million for an Iraqi Sesame Street;

$833,000 for services for transgender people, sex workers, and their clients and social networkers in Nepal; and

$500,000 for electric buses in Rwanda.

These examples barely skim the surface, Mr. Speaker, and it is really no wonder why Americans are outraged that their tax dollars are being squandered.

It is the American people's money. A single dollar of taxpayer money wasted is $1 too many in our view.

Then there is NPR. I honestly don't even know where to begin on that one. Even if someone were to accept the premise that we need to finance a public radio outlet, then certainly we can all agree that it simply cannot be NPR any longer. NPR's own CEO testified before Congress that she has never seen any political bias at NPR. I don't know what reality she is living in, but it clearly isn't this one.

Here is the kicker: NPR does harbor political bias. It took a $1.9 million grant to improve objectivity and diverse viewpoints.

There is the proof, and it is a concrete example that NPR's CEO was giving false testimony to Congress.

Mr. Speaker, you either understand that you are biased and need help, apparently in the form of taxpayer grants, or you haven't witnessed any bias. You can't have it both ways.

Then there is PBS. Again, I honestly don't know where to begin. On top of the concrete, statistically proven bias against conservatives, Republicans, and the Trump administration, this is the 21st century. We have Sesame Street now streaming on private services so the taxpayers are now subsidizing for-profit companies. We have seen private celebrities like Ms. Rachel who are engaging in crossover with Sesame Street which, again, leveraged taxpayer dollars to concentrate wealth to private individuals.

It is clear that we must slash this tranche of wasteful spending and continue down a path to fully restore fiscal sanity in our Nation.

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

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

Once again, I need to set the facts straight. Our colleagues keep flip-flopping on their characterization of cuts to wasteful spending and our campaign to get our fiscal house in order.

At one moment our spending cuts are so monumental and draconian that the Earth is going to stand still and people are going to die, as they told us in the Rules Committee. Literally seconds after they said that yesterday, not even minutes later, they tell us that the spending cut is inconsequential, that it is a rounding error, and that it is a drop in the bucket.

Mr. Speaker, which is it?

It has to be one or the other.

The fact that our colleagues keep twisting themselves in knots is simply evidence that they are doing everything in their power to hide the facts about this vote.

At one minute, this $10 billion return on taxpayer dollars is not worth Congress' time. At another minute, they will tell us that these are draconian cuts that they will oppose with every ounce of strength in their bodies.

Give me a break.

Republicans are finally offering taxpayers relief from years of profligate spending from Democrats. Again, they expanded the Federal Government with an unprecedented $11 trillion in spending, $6 trillion of which has been added to the national debt. It is time to end that spending.

We are ending it in H.R. 1. We are ending it in this package here today, and we won't stop fighting for taxpayers. We can cut spending in little chunks and in big chunks.

In response to Mr. McGovern's obvious assertions, Members always have a choice to vote up or down on legislation, be it a rule, authorization, or appropriation.

The plain text of the rule provides for consideration of this rescissions package and advances H.R. 1 by adopting the engrossment resolution.

Since Democrats seem to have selective memory, let me remind them, and Americans, that during the 117th Congress, very recently, House Democrats deemed 29 items total. Also included in that number is the engrossment correction resolution they deemed in a rule for the American Rescue Plan Act, which included section and paragraph strikes.

In contrast, Republicans in the 118th Congress deemed only two measures. We understand that this is a tool of the majority that should be used only when necessary.

We all know the Democrats opposed H.R. 1. They opposed it weeks ago, and they opposed the engrossment resolution last night on the basis that it advances H.R. 1.

Mr. McGovern is tying himself in knots here. In a ``Dear Colleague'' he circulated, he characterized this rule as repassing H.R. 1, just before he went on to complain that H.R. 1's engrossment is not getting its own vote.

Nothing was added to H.R. 1. Let me repeat, nothing was added to H.R. 1. Every change was technical or simply removed provisions to make sure this big, beautiful bill has its day in the Senate.

Let's remind the American people what the Democrats voted against in H.R. 1. Democrats went on record against tax cuts for families, against tax relief for tips, against tax relief for senior citizens. They went on record against protecting Medicaid by advocating for the enrollment of 1.4 million illegal aliens. They went on record against increasing the quality of life funds for our Nation's military families.

We have a rule before us to protect H.R. 1's process in the Senate and restore fiscal sanity to our Nation, and the American people need and want us to deliver.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This rescissions package does reduce certain global health accounts by hundreds of millions. Keep in mind that $10 billion has been appropriated for this work in these accounts, making this rescission exact and very targeted.

The Trump administration has communicated it will not reduce funds for treatment in PEPFAR, rather it eliminates programs antithetical to American interests and ones that worsen the lives of women and children. Enacting this rescission will get this funding stream back to its core mission by refocusing it on protecting health and supporting life-sustaining treatment.

What we don't need is the wasteful spending priorities of President Biden now exposed by the Trump administration: $500,000 for a Lesbian Justice Foundation in Canada; $9.3 million to the John Snow Research and Training Institute to advise Russian doctors on how to perform abortions and gender analysis; $800,000 for transgender people, sex workers and their clients and sexual networks in Nepal; $7.4 million for a One Health Workforce project whose curriculum includes teaching practitioners about environmental racism and the importance of DEI.

This spending, guised under the terms ``equity, reproductive health, and family planning,'' stray far from the mission of sustaining life and serve no benefit to the populations they are intended to help.

These are wasteful programs financed by the American taxpayer, funded by deficit spending; but no longer. This money is better off returned to the Treasury, and PEPFAR's integrity is now being restored.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 mandates that all public broadcasting programs must demonstrate strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs. There is a myriad of statistical studies that prove they are not.

NPR banned coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story, claiming it was a mere diversion. PBS made 162 references to ``far right'' versus only 6 references to ``far left.'' Perhaps most damning for NPR is the fact that it had to utilize a $1.9 million Federal grant to improve objectivity and diverse viewpoints last year.

The problem with the Public Broadcasting Act is that it lacks an enforcement mechanism, so we will go with our constitutional prerogatives here to enforce the law. That starts with this rescission of funding.

PBS and NPR will continue to pivot their response to this cut back and forth, as they have for some time. They tell us that their taxpayer-funded gift is just a drop in the bucket, not worth our attention. Nothing to see here. Yet, when we want to hold them accountable, it is the end of the world.

They will weaponize their content against congressional Republicans. They will hire lobbyists. They will buy ads. In fact, they have. They can continue to do that, but thankfully, it won't be subsidized by the taxpayer any longer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Roy).

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

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Texas (Mr. Roy) explained very well why we are not voting to increase the deficit by $3 trillion. We all know that that is coming from the fact that we are extending tax cuts that were passed in 2017.

By the way, if we go back and look at the Record at all the scare tactics and all the Armageddon comments that were made when we passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, we heard the same things. None of those things happened. In fact, we had a booming economy. I don't think the same scare tactics are going to work again.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Americans are the most generous and caring people in the world. We have set up lots of programs to save the lives of people across this country and across the world, and we will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker. What we are doing here is not going to cause people to be dying if the money is spent the way Congress intends for it to be spent.

Now, as my Democrat colleagues are well aware, reconciliation bills are different from other types of legislation and are prohibited from including provisions deemed as extraneous in the Senate.

What we are doing here in terms of the engrossment resolution for H.R. 1 is we are striking a few provisions in the bill that Senate Parliamentarians concluded would jeopardize the privileged status of the bill in the Senate.

The House is taking all necessary steps to enable the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to be considered expeditiously in the Senate and sent to President Trump's desk under the reconciliation process, which is what this engrossment resolution does.

Mr. Speaker, I will also remind the ranking member and my Democrat colleagues that when they were last in the majority, they also utilized an engrossment resolution to strike extraneous provisions from their American Rescue Plan in 2021.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing with the reconciliation bill and with the rescission bill is, we are doing everything we can to get our country back in fiscal shape. That is more important to the people in this world than any individual program is. It is important that the United States remain the greatest country in the world and that we reduce our debt and deficit. That is the focus of Republicans.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the answer is clear: The American people gave Republicans a mandate to restore fiscal sanity. This rescissions package is part of achieving that end.

Republicans are cleaning up the ruin that the Biden-Harris administration left this country in. We are taking a fiscal scalpel to waste, fraud, and abuse within the Federal Government. It is the right thing to do.

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, I rise to commend the Rockingham County government and Kevin Berger, chairman of the Rockingham County Commissioners Board, in the planning and implementation of the Rockingham County Veterans Treatment Court.

In October of last year, the Rockingham County government received a $900,000 grant to help fund this novel endeavor. It was one out of five counties within the United States to receive this level of funding for such programs.

This money will go on to make a real difference in the lives of veterans by offering evidence-based treatment for substance abuse and mental health.

The process of obtaining this grant was very competitive, and I am immensely pleased that Rockingham County has this opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of our Nation's heroes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the requirement of clause 11(a)(1) of rule X, during the 119th Congress, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence be composed of not more than 27 Members, of whom not more than 15 be from the same party.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding and for her great work on this rule.

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

After a marathon session in the Rules Committee, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act now stands right here on the floor of the people's House.

For months, the House's committees, chairmen, Members, and staff have worked to craft this legislation. Let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker, it is truly big and beautiful.

It is a clear, full-throated response to the millions of hardworking men and women across the entire Nation who believe that America is due for a serious course correction. These men and women categorically rejected the dysfunction and disarray of the last 4 years under the Biden-Harris administration.

While our colleagues across the aisle have resorted to casting aspersions, conjuring up misleading claims, and fear-mongering about this legislation, Republicans are the ones who put pen to paper and have created one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in our Nation's history.

The American people and this government, by extension, cannot afford inaction. Americans need this legislation to ensure our economic survival

and the sustainability of this Republican government. More than 77 million Americans entrusted us with this explicit responsibility: to govern in such a decisive, forward-thinking manner that will lead America straight into the golden age.

The express purpose of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is this: to ensure that our Federal spending, taxation, and other revenue- generating concepts align with the current needs of the American people and bring us into that new American era.

How do we achieve this grand realignment? It is through this great reconciliation project. We are executing the instructions given to the committees, pursuant to the budget resolution--one that passed both Chambers and is binding on this body and the Senate.

We are not interested in rhetorical jousting or succumbing to the status quo. We are interested in delivering real, tangible results to the American people.

These results are achieving the full potential of our energy dominance, realizing a secured border, and establishing fiscal certainty for our great American future.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to be part of delivering real, tangible results by voting ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the centennial celebration of Caterpillar, one of America's greatest companies.

For 100 years, Caterpillar has produced impeccable pieces of machinery that include construction and mining equipment, off-highway diesel and natural gas engines, industrial gas turbines, and diesel- electric locomotives.

This is a company that continues to lead the way in innovation, not only here in America but also within continents across the entire world.

Congratulations to Caterpillar and its many dedicated employees on reaching this historic and admirable milestone. Here is to another century of excellence and innovation in manufacturing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Israel's Independence Day and 77th birthday.

The United States and Israel have a binding, ironclad partnership that continues to grow stronger as the months and years go on.

As President Reagan once said: ``For the people of Israel and America are historic partners in the global quest for human dignity and freedom. We will always remain at each other's side.''

Our values are one and the same, and our joint commitment to advancing freedom and human dignity will never cease.

To the State of Israel and the Jewish people, I say this: We will always stand firmly alongside you. You can count on us today, tomorrow, and always.

Mr. Speaker, it was an honor to visit Gateway Nursing and Rehab in Lenoir, North Carolina, this past Friday and attend a program that honored veterans who are receiving care there.

I commend Shannon Price, the director of social services, as well as members of the staff for taking the time and making the effort to recognize those veterans.

The program was very positive. Shannon is a true patriot, and so, too, are members of her family, including her son Seth, who is currently serving in the Army.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Shannon and all the wonderful staff at Gateway Nursing and Rehab for all they do in service to our Nation's veterans and for those who are currently serving in the Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the statement of Shannon Price.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 313 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.

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

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

This morning, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 313, providing for the House's consideration of the Senate amendment to H. Con. Res. 14.

This rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the Budget or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H. Con. Res. 14. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective designees.

Additionally, the rule tolls the day count for National Emergencies Act disapproval resolutions related to the emergency declared by President Trump on April 2, 2025, until September 30, 2025.

This budget resolution marks the next step in the reconciliation process to advance President Trump's America First agenda and deliver upon the American people's mandate from November.

We have certainly heard our fair share of fear-mongering and flat-out falsehoods from Democrats and their bedfellows in the mainstream media about what our budget resolution entails. Let me be clear: This resolution unlocks the path forward to deliver upon our commitments to the American people.

Over the next hour, I will bet you dollars to doughnuts, Mr. Speaker, that you will hear all manner of identity groups that Democrats will claim the budget resolution will hurt. You will hear them say that Republicans are abandoning the middle class and cutting benefits. None of that is even remotely true.

We heard some wild, wild conjecture in the Rules Committee this morning that Republicans would cut off your limbs and let you bleed to death if you had a cold. Notch that as another textbook example of Democrat fear-mongering that we have heard over the past few months. It is disappointing but far from surprising.

Here is the truth: There are no programmatic cuts or assumptions in the House-passed budget resolution. Not a single Democrat can back up his or her own claims that there are cuts to specific programs in the budget resolution. That is because, again, there are no programmatic cuts or assumptions.

Let's set the record straight about what this budget resolution actually accomplishes. It will provide funding for border security, provide for our national defense, and restore American energy independence.

On border security, the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies resulted in over 10 million encounters at the southern border from 2021 to this year, a 500 percent increase in illegal crossings, and over $115 billion in costs to State and local governments. This wide-open border allowed deadly fentanyl to flood into our communities, killing over 100,000 Americans. Even worse, known gang members and violent criminals from across the globe have walked right into our country.

Because of the Biden administration's abject failure, innocent Americans have been raped, assaulted, and murdered by illegal immigrants who never should have been here in the first place.

Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. We must and we will secure the border and put the safety of the American people first.

Next, the resolution enables us to protect tax relief. President Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provided critical relief to middle-class families and small businesses. Americans are still experiencing high prices because we are still recovering from Bidenomics.

Real wages under President Biden declined by more than 3 percent. Mortgage rates skyrocketed. Credit card delinquencies rose by over 50 percent. Bidenomics cost American families more than $11,000 every year for the last 4 years.

Mr. Speaker, these are facts. They are documented. This is so different from what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing in their fear-mongering when they are projecting what they think will happen if we get through our reconciliation.

This budget resolution also puts American energy dominance first. Under President Trump's first administration, America achieved energy freedom for the first time in 40 years. We were producing more than we consumed. Gas prices were low and families were thriving.

That all changed the day Joe Biden walked into the Oval Office. President Biden waged an all-out assault on American energy. He shut down production, blocked development on Federal lands, and recklessly drained our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, all the while begging foreign dictators for oil. The result was skyrocketing prices and American families clutching their wallets in fear.

Again, these are facts, Mr. Speaker, proven facts.

This budget resolution is our roadmap to take this country back. It secures the border, slashes wasteful spending, delivers tax relief for working families, and begins to rebuild the economy that the Biden- Harris administration shattered.

It is time to put America first again, and the budget resolution is how we get it done. Once adopted, our committees and the entire House will begin detailed work to achieve these important goals for the American people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I warned everybody that this is what we were going to hear. We were going to hear these outrageous claims that are simply not true.

The fact is that the rhetoric coming from the other side has reached an appalling level. We have heard the scare tactics for weeks now, but it has taken a dark turn, Mr. Speaker, that is literally instilling fear into the hearts of blameless, everyday Americans.

We heard in the Committee on Rules this morning of how Democrats brought people to tears in meetings by telling them lies about what was in our budget resolutions. Mr. Speaker, that is shameful. That is shameful.

We can have disagreements about policy decisions. We can have disagreements about the effects of mismanagement of tax-dollar funds, for example, or what amount of tax relief is appropriate. Yet, the Democrats have now impugned Republican motivations and put blood on our hands.

A Democrat in the Committee on Rules this morning stated that: Republicans would cut off your limbs and let you bleed to death, in the context relating to a patient asking for help with a cold.

It was an absolutely disgusting remark that has no place in this debate. Is this what Leader Jeffries wants to come to the floor to state, that we are cutting the limbs off of people to watch them bleed out?

Does Leader Jeffries want to stoke fear in this way and terrorize Americans?

Instead of recognizing the sickening, repulsive rhetoric for what it is, this Member doubled down and posted it on her social media accounts, instilling fear in and terrorizing those people who she claims to care for.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats are injecting fear into the lives of countless Americans, stoking their anxieties, disinforming them, dragging them into the muck of the worst of political discourse, and for what? For what?

Mr. Speaker, it is for political gain. It is sickening.

Let's be clear. This is a budget resolution. It doesn't have a shred of force of law outside internal procedures in this body. Yet, the Democrats would make us believe that we are targeting people.

There isn't any targeting. There aren't any assumptions about programs. Just read the resolution. It is a framework, and my colleagues won't find any of what the Democrats are discussing here today. Those things are not here.

With respect to what Republicans have been articulating outside of this resolution, we are aiming to ensure that Medicaid is targeted to the most vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker, we need to beef up Medicaid that is going to the most vulnerable. We want to rid the program of waste, fraud, and abuse that is robbing the American public of tax dollars that could better care for the sick.

Mr. Speaker, we truly care for those people, which is why we are trying to root out waste, fraud, and abuse which has not been acknowledged at all by our colleagues.

We want to create better patient outcomes through innovation. We want to rightsize State implementation so the truly needy are getting relief, and we want to focus assistance to those who are truly on the margins.

As Shakespeare said: ``What's past is prologue.'' The Democrats continue their campaigns of lies just as the minority has in the past. My Democratic colleagues famously got four Pinocchios from The Washington Post, hardly a conservative enclave, for their clearly false facts about the Trump tax cuts.

Democrats said they were targeted toward the rich and corporations that pay no taxes, but we factually know that the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of earners actually reached new heights, Mr. Speaker, after President Trump's tax cuts went into effect. The outcomes got more progressive.

Mr. Speaker, more recently, it has been publicly reported that ads placed by Democratic-aligned groups had to be taken down because of the same inaccuracies. What was their message?

Their message was that Republicans voted to cut Medicaid and give tax cuts to billionaires. That sounds exactly like what we are hearing on the floor. It wouldn't be able to be run on a billboard. It doesn't pass the simple test of scrutiny.

Mr. Speaker, the American public deserves better. Let's deal with facts, and let's not scare the American people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not very happy about the fact that I am a good predictor of what the Democrats were going to say on the floor today, that the minority was going to lie about what is in this budget resolution. I expect every single one of them to come down here and do that. I predicted it, Mr. Speaker. Here it is, coming true.

Let me talk a little bit about the tariffs. The tariffs announced by President Trump on April 2, 2025, are a response to our economy that will strengthen the international economic position of the United States and protect American workers.

Access to the American economy is a privilege, and these tariffs are a starting point to bring other nations to the negotiating table. They are intended to reduce reciprocal tariffs and achieve global free trade, decouple developing countries from competitive nations like China, or for national security purposes.

As we are seeing, President Trump and America are winning. Over 75 countries have reached out to representatives of the United States to negotiate a solution on the subjects being discussed relative to trade: trade barriers, tariffs, currency manipulation, and nonmonetary tariffs. These will mean wins for the American worker.

President Trump is taking decisive action, pausing tariffs for 90 days, except for China, as nations have come to the table.

As I have made clear multiple times now, when it comes to the pause on the National Emergencies Act disapproval resolutions, this is a tool utilized by both majorities, and my Democrat colleagues had no qualms with supporting it in their last majority on a much broader and open- ended scale as it related to COVID.

This is why delaying the NEA disapproval resolution is prudent. President Trump must be given the leeway to negotiate on a global scale parameters that will make good on his promises of securing the border, protecting our communities, and leveling the global playing field to ensure fair trade for American producers.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do have some other Members who wanted to come down and speak on the rule. They are tied up right now. If the gentleman is prepared to close, then I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear our friends say they don't share the values of trying to save hardworking Americans' money from waste, fraud, and abuse, which are rampant in the Federal Government.

The American people know that, Mr. Speaker. They know that in their hearts and in their minds. They understand it. They hear about it every day.

It is curious to me that our Democratic colleagues do not want to make Medicaid more effective, that they don't want to help the people on Medicaid get better healthcare. How sad, Mr. Speaker, that that is the case.

Mr. Speaker, this budget does not steal from the least of these. It does not. What it does do is everything it can to stop fraudsters, to stop bureaucratic waste, and to stop bad things from happening to those least because those in the government are not serving them well.

Let's talk about these predictions. I started out by saying you are going to hear these horror stories. They said we are going to cut people's limbs off and watch them bleed to death.

Let's look at the predictions that were made when President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act around Christmas 2017. Then- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi infamously predicted Armageddon for America--fear-mongering, plain and simple. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act led to historic growth and economic gains in this country.

Larry Summers, a well-known Democrat, described progrowth forecasts as ``tooth fairies'' and predicted a long recession. That is fear- mongering. We got the opposite, a historic economic expansion under President Trump. Senator Chuck Schumer earned a ``mostly false'' rating for claiming companies were laying off workers due to tax reform. That is fear-mongering again.

Yesterday, I had in my office some businesspeople, and they talked about what they did when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed. They gave all of their employees a raise. We know about that, Mr. Speaker, those of us who were around. We saw that. There was lots of news about that because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

As a result of that bill, we got historic reshoring and more jobs, as promised by President Trump.

Then-Senator Harris, later Vice President Harris, claimed there would be a middle-class tax hike because average tax refunds were slightly down as tax season began. One newspaper deemed her claim ``misleading'' and--surprise, surprise--``nonsensical.'' History now reveals it to be false, and I would call it fear-mongering, the same we have been hearing on the floor today.

In perhaps one of the greatest reveals, liberal Vox writer Matthew Yglesias, after admitting that facts show ``a clear majority got a tax cut,'' praised other liberals who ``did a really good job of convincing people that Trump raised their taxes.'' Fear-mongering revealed.

Mr. Speaker, the fear-mongering needs to end, and the business of this House needs to continue. Again, despite what our colleagues on the left may claim, the American people know the truth. The Biden-Harris administration was a relentless assault on our economy, our national security, and our energy independence.

Today in Rules, one of our colleagues said they are always left to clean up Republicans' mess. No. It is the Republicans who have to clean up the Democrats' mess.

Under the Biden-Harris administration, they waged war on American energy, opened our borders to chaos, and drove inflation through the roof, all while families struggled to keep up.

That is exactly why Americans were fired up at the ballot box last November. The American people had enough of Democratic dysfunction.

This budget resolution is the beginning of delivering on President Trump's America First agenda. We are cutting waste, restoring our economy, delivering relief to working families, securing the border, and unleashing American energy like never before.

This is more than a budget. It is a blueprint to take our country back, Mr. Speaker. We are done playing defense. It is time to lead, fight, and win, all for the American people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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