{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-2025-04-08-pt1-PgH1473-2", "2025-04-08", 119, 1, null, null, "PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 18, DISAPPROVING THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO \"OVERDRAFT LENDING: VERY LARGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS...", "HOUSE", "HOUSE", "ALLOTHER", "H1473", "H1480", "[{\"name\": \"Virginia Foxx\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"James P. McGovern\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Chip Roy\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Brittany Pettersen\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Gregory W. Meeks\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Melanie A. Stansbury\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}, {\"name\": \"Al Green\", \"role\": \"speaking\"}]", "[{\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"8\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"SJRES\", \"number\": \"18\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"SJRES\", \"number\": \"18\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"22\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"22\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"SJRES\", \"number\": \"28\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"SJRES\", \"number\": \"28\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HJRES\", \"number\": \"72\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HJRES\", \"number\": \"73\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HJRES\", \"number\": \"91\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"164\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"211\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"293\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"294\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"294\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HRES\", \"number\": \"294\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1526\"}, {\"congress\": \"119\", \"type\": \"HR\", \"number\": \"1526\"}]", "171 Cong. Rec. H1473", "Congressional Record, Volume 171 Issue 63 (Tuesday, April 8, 2025)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 8, 2025)]\n[House]\n[Pages H1473-H1480]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 18, DISAPPROVING THE RULE\n SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO\n``OVERDRAFT LENDING: VERY LARGE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS''; PROVIDING FOR\n CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 28, DISAPPROVING THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE\n BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO ``DEFINING LARGER\n   PARTICIPANTS OF A MARKET FOR GENERAL-USE DIGITAL CONSUMER PAYMENT\n  APPLICATIONS''; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1526, NO ROGUE\nRULINGS ACT OF 2025; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 22, SAFEGUARD\n         AMERICAN VOTER ELIGIBILITY ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES\n\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call\nup House Resolution 294 and ask for its immediate consideration.\n  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:\n\n                               H. Res 294\n\n       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be\n     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J.\n     Res. 18) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of\n     Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft\n     Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''. All points of\n     order against consideration of the joint resolution are\n     waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All\n     points of order against provisions in the joint resolution\n     are waived. The previous question shall be considered as\n     ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto\n     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one\n     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair\n     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial\n     Services or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to\n     commit.\n       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in\n     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J.\n     Res. 28) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of\n     Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Defining Larger\n     Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer\n     Payment Applications''. All points of order against\n     consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint\n     resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order\n     against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The\n     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint\n     resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage\n     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate\n     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking\n     minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or\n     their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit.\n       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in\n     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1526) to amend\n     title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of\n     district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other\n     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the\n     bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute\n     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in\n     the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as\n     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order\n     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The\n     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,\n     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final\n     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of\n     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and\n     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or\n     their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.\n       Sec. 4.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in\n     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 22) to amend\n     the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof\n     of United States citizenship to register an individual to\n     vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.\n     All points of order against consideration of the bill are\n     waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of\n     order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous\n     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on\n     any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening\n     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and\n     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the\n     Committee on House Administration or their respective\n     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.\n       Sec. 5.  House Resolution 293 is hereby adopted.\n       Sec. 6.  House Resolution 164 is laid on the table.\n\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is\nrecognized for 1 hour.\n\n                              {time}  1215\n\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the\ncustomary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.\nMcGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the\npurpose of debate only.\n\n                             General Leave\n\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have\n5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentlewoman from North Carolina?\n  There was no objection.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and\nproduced a rule, House Resolution 294, providing for consideration of\nfour measures: S.J. Res. 18, disapproving the rule submitted by the\nBureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft\nLending: Very Large Financial Institutions''; S.J. Res. 28,\ndisapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial\nProtection relating to ``Defining Larger Participants of a Market for\nGeneral-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications''; H.R. 1526, the No\nRogue Rulings Act of 2025; and H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter\nEligibility Act.\n  House Resolution 294 provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 18 and\nS.J. Res. 28, both under closed rules, with 1 hour of general debate\neach, equally divided and controlled by the chair and rank minority\nmember of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective\ndesignees and provides each one motion to commit.\n\n[[Page H1474]]\n\n  The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1526, the No\nRogue Rulings Act of 2025, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1\nhour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and\nranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their\nrespective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.\n  The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 22, the Safeguard\nAmerican Voter Eligibility Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides\n1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair\nand ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or\ntheir respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.\n  Finally, the rule provides that H. Res. 293 is hereby adopted and\nprovides that House Resolution 164 is laid on the table.\n  The rule before us today provides Congress with yet another\nopportunity to stand for consumer choice and business innovation in our\nNation. It provides an opportunity to defend the integrity of our\nelections, and it provides for a historic opportunity to rein in rogue\njudges and return public policy decisions to their rightful branches of\ngovernment.\n  H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act,\nwould amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require\nproof of U.S. citizenship to register an individual to vote in\nelections for Federal office.\n  The only people who should vote in American elections are American\ncitizens. There should be no debate or question about that. The SAVE\nAct adds additional layers of protection to elections right here in our\nown country. It is an opportunity worthy of bipartisan support.\n  H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, would limit the\nauthority of district judges to provide sweeping injunctive relief on a\nnationwide or exceedingly broad scale.\n  As of late, we have certainly seen a slew of rulings by rogue judges\nthat surpass their own constitutional authority. Americans are\nrightfully concerned about this very issue.\n  Let me be clear. This is judicial warfare in the flesh. Without\nquestion, exceeding constitutional mandates as a matter of judicial\nphilosophy does nothing more than blight justice itself.\n  S.J. Res. 18, a Congressional Review Act resolution, would overturn a\nmidnight rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB,\nthat undercuts the ability of lower-income Americans to access\nliquidity.\n  To put it very simply, this CFPB's rule hurts the very consumers that\nit purports to protect.\n  One of the likely outcomes of this rule being fully implemented would\nbe low-income Americans being expelled from the financial system\nentirely due to lack of overdraft protection. It is time that we add\nthis midnight rule to the burn pile.\n  S.J. Res. 28, another Congressional Review Act resolution, would\noverturn another CFPB rule that unjustly shackles private-sector\ncompanies that operate within the digital asset marketplace.\n  This rule is billed as a ``consumer protection'' mechanism, but what\nit really does is misclassifies an entire segment of digital products\nwith the aim of regulating them straight into the ground. The CFPB\noverstepped its regulatory authority in its pursuit of subjugating the\nAmerican economy in the name of consumer protection. This is another\nmisguided rule that we must render null and void.\n  Mr. Speaker, before I reserve, I want to take a moment to recognize\nthe good faith efforts of Speaker Johnson in helping maintain a strong\nfamily-centric posture here in the people's House.\n  Leading from the front and building consensus are not always easy\nendeavors. All of us understand this to be true. However, when done in\nthe right ways and for the right reasons, like what the Speaker has\ndone, we get positive resolutions.\n  It is obvious that we have a critical mass of Members on what I\nconsider an existential question for this body and that the related\ndischarge effort derailed our agenda for a short time. However, we are\nback at our post, and our objective right here and now is to move\nforward.\n  At the end of the day, our eyes must remain affixed to our very own\nNorth Star. Our North Star is governance, Mr. Speaker. Deviating from\ngoverning does not serve the American people, nor does it make good on\nthe mandate they entrusted us with.\n\n  The compromise agreement of dead pairing that was formulated and led\nby the Speaker and others is grounded in existing precedents,\npractices, and, ultimately, common sense.\n  This is a viable pathway forward that meets two critical imperatives.\nIt allows the clockwork and business of this body to remain unabated\nwhile extending due deference to our own majority's own governing\nprinciples.\n  It is not the prerogative of this Republican majority now, nor will\nit ever be, to use tools of the minority to secure legislative\nvictories. Republicans are the ones manning the helm here, and we must\nact like it.\n  In addition, I will add that I firmly believe, as do many others,\nthat Speaker Johnson's work in addressing the concerns raised last week\nand taking sizable steps to further intertwine rock-solid family values\ninto the fabric of this House are very commendable.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North\nCarolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself\nsuch time as I may consume.\n  I have to ask, Mr. Speaker: What the hell is the Republican majority\ndoing?\n  I mean, last week, these guys canceled Congress and went home all\nbecause they don't want new moms or dads to be able to vote. So much\nfor being the party of family values.\n  The gentlewoman just said that the Speaker is very much in support of\nfamily values, yet he has a problem with allowing new moms and dads to\nbe able to vote by proxy. He seems to have no problem with Republican\nMembers flying to the West Coast, filming comedy shows in Hollywood,\nand voting by proxy.\n  I mean, I don't get it. That is what family values mean to my\nRepublican friends?\n  It took the Speaker a week--it took the Speaker a whole week--to buy\noff a few votes by offering a pretend deal. Now, Republicans are ready\nto move forward on the important legislative business of--wait for it--\npassing the same bills they rejected last week, not that these bills\nare any better the second time around.\n  These bills include a bill that will make it harder for women to\nvote, a bill to let the Trump administration break the law, and two\nresolutions that stick it to consumers.\n  Honest to God, Mr. Speaker, who asked for these? Which Trump donor\nwrote these measures?\n  Meanwhile, what aren't we talking about on the floor right now? We\naren't talking about the tariffs, not a peep about the tariffs, not a\npeep about the chaos in the markets, not a peep about the uncertainty\nthis is causing, not a peep about how this is going to screw over\nmiddle America.\n  Never in my life have I seen anything like this.\n  The President promised lower prices and a booming economy, and we are\ngoing to get higher prices and a recession. This is nuts.\n  Trump isn't using tariffs strategically. He is launching an economic\nnuclear war, and we are all in the blast zone. This is a disaster.\n  Even if you agree with these tariffs, which is nuts, put that aside.\nEven if you are a fan, can just one Republican admit that it is insane\nthat one guy is making this call alone?\n  Our Founders fought a revolution to stop one person from having this\nmuch power, and so-called conservatives are rewriting the rules to\ndodge a vote in Congress. This is crazy.\n  They are totally fine giving Trump unlimited power to do whatever the\nhell he wants, and they won't even let us vote. They won't even let us\nvote.\n  A few minutes ago, I sought recognition for a motion allowed under\nthe law to bring a joint resolution to the floor to end just one of\nTrump's tariffs, and that request was denied because Republicans have\nrigged the rules. Let me repeat that. Republicans have rigged the\nrules, and I will talk more about that during this debate.\n  This is all because Republicans know what is coming, and they are\nscared. They know people are going to lose\n\n[[Page H1475]]\n\ntheir jobs. They know paychecks are going to shrivel. They know prices\nwill go up, retirement plans will go down, and businesses are going to\nstop investing.\n  They don't want to have to go home and explain it. They don't want to\nhave to put their names on that. They are rigging the rules so we don't\nhave a vote.\n  Guess what. They can run from accountability, but they can't hide\nfrom the consequences.\n  You guys own this. You own the tariffs. You own the fallout.\n  There is no plan here, no strategy, just economic self-sabotage.\nRegular Americans are going to pay the price for these tariffs. This is\na disaster for our country, and you guys are too chicken to even vote\n``yes'' or ``no'' on whether you support the tariffs.\n\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished\ngentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).\n  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for\nyielding.\n  My friend was talking about rigging the rules. My colleagues on the\nother side of the aisle are all too happy to have district judges rig\nthe rules to stop the President of the United States from being able to\ndefend our country.\n  Just last week, within close proximity to my house in Dripping\nSprings, Texas, 47 individuals who are affiliated with the gang Tren de\nAragua were found by ICE. Right down the road in suburban Austin,\nTexas, 47 people, including 9 children, were found in what was a stash\nhouse, moving narcotics through it.\n  This is the same gang that killed Jocelyn Nungaray last summer. This\nis the same gang that was torturing and driving fear into the hearts of\nthe people in Aurora, Colorado, in the apartment complexes that my\ncolleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge. These\nare all the same people who are being allowed to vote, the same people\nthat we were elected in November to remove from the country.\n  The President of the United States as Commander in Chief in defending\nthe United States and as the Chief Executive is carrying out the laws\nto remove dangerous individuals from the United States of America.\nThen, an activist district judge in the District of Columbia decided\nthat, in his view, he had to step in. He had to step in to try to\nassert his jurisdiction where it did not belong to try to stop the\nPresident of the United States from removing dangerous gang members who\nare killing Americans.\n\n                              {time}  1230\n\n  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the United States Supreme Court said: Stop.\nYou don't get to do that, Mr. District Judge in D.C. If you are going\nto do this, you have to do this in Texas.\n  Mr. Speaker, that was the whole point.\n  Just today, we had another ruling out of the Supreme Court slapping\ndown yet another activist judge.\n  What are we doing, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern)\nasks. What are we doing as Republicans? We are putting forward language\ntoday that would stop rogue district judges from carrying out\nnationwide injunctions and temporary restraining orders and who are\ntrying to effectively legislate from the bench.\n  Mr. Speaker, we are not alone in that position. The Biden\nadministration's solicitor general in 2024 told the Supreme Court: ``A\ncourt of equity may grant relief only to the parties before it.''\n  In 2022, that same solicitor general asked the Supreme Court to\naddress nationwide injunctions.\n  In 2022, Justice Elena Kagan spoke out against the ability of a\nsingle judge to stop implementation of a policy across the country.\n  Lo and behold, we are advancing bipartisan work to address a\nbipartisan problem that Democrats have very clearly identified. The\nonly difference now is that Donald Trump is in the White House instead\nof Joe Biden.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the\ngentleman from Texas.\n  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina\n(Ms. Foxx) for yielding additional time.\n  Mr. Speaker, again, Republicans have brought forward a rule\ncontaining a bill that addresses a problem that Democrats have\nidentified as a problem, to say that the parties before the court are\nthe only ones to whom it should apply and allows for a mechanism to\nachieve nationwide injunctions through a three-judge panel.\n  Mr. Speaker, we are also bringing to the floor a bill that will say\nthat only American citizens should vote in American elections. The\ncontroversy--oh, my gosh--the bloodletting, that we might say in the\nUnited States House of Representatives that only American citizens\nshould be able to vote in American elections. Yet, that is what we are\ndoing.\n  Republicans are responding to an American people who are tired of the\nprevious administration that was allowing illegals to come into our\ncountry, kill our citizens, vote in our elections, and undermine our\ncountry. We are addressing their concerns, and our colleagues on the\nother side of the aisle don't want to address it.\n  Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the rule, and I thank the\ngentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for yielding me time.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) will be happy\nto learn that it already is the law that only American citizens can\nvote in Federal elections. I am happy to send him the law so that he\ncan understand that.\n  Our problem with the SAVE Act is that it is an attempt to make it\nmore difficult for women who are U.S. citizens to be able to vote.\n  Talking about rigging the rules, again, there are four closed rules\nin this rule. For those who are tuning in, that means that we can't\noffer any amendments, we can't change anything, and we just have to\ntake it or leave it. That is called rigging the rules so that Democrats\nand Republicans can't participate in the process.\n  Then there is a fifth measure in here. The gentleman who was just\nscreaming on the floor helped lead the effort to get the Speaker of the\nHouse basically to go against the will of the majority in this House\nwho wanted very much to have an up or down vote on whether or not we\ncould allow new parents to be able to vote by proxy, so that they could\nactually stay home with their new baby for a brief period of time and\nbe able to represent their constituents at the same time.\n  What is in this rule is a fake compromise, they call it. It is a\nnothing burger. It doesn't change anything. It doesn't help anybody.\nBasically, we can't debate or vote up or down on that. It is deemed\npassed. Magically, it is deemed passed in this rule if this rule gets a\nmajority vote.\n  Mr. Speaker, not to mention what I was saying at the very beginning\nthat Republicans have basically shut off any attempts to bring\nlegislation to the floor to deal with President Trump's tariffs, which,\nby the way, are going to result in enormous cost increases for\nconsumers.\n  Mr. Speaker, this whole House is being mismanaged. This whole House\nis being run in a way that, quite frankly, would impress Vladimir\nPutin. Yet, then again, maybe that is who they want to impress.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms.\nPettersen), who led the effort, along with Ms. Jacobs of California, to\ngrant new parents the ability to be able to be good parents, to be able\nto be with their newborns and still be able to represent their\nconstituents.\n  Ms. PETTERSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts\nfor yielding me time.\n  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule that will kill our\nbipartisan effort to allow parents who have welcomed a new child to\nvote remotely.\n  I thank Representative Luna for her unwavering commitment to giving\nmoms and dads a voice in Congress. A large majority of the Members of\nthe House support changing the way we do things here and making it more\naccessible to young families and more reflective of the American\npeople.\n  Speaker Johnson pulled out all of the stops to prevent us from moving\nforward. We followed the rules and filed a discharge petition. We got\nthe 218 signatures necessary to bring it to a vote\n\n[[Page H1476]]\n\non the floor. Yet, he went to historic lengths to try to stifle our\nvoices, including blocking our resolution today before we even had the\nopportunity to vote for it.\n\n  Even the President supports this and doesn't understand why it is so\ncontroversial, and neither does the rest of America.\n  Let's be clear that the changes agreed upon by the Speaker are not a\nwin for us. They do not address the challenges that we have worked so\nhard to overcome. The Speaker turned his back on moms and dads in\nCongress and working families across the country.\n  Congress is stuck doing things the way that we did hundreds of years\nago, and it is time that we move it into the 21st century.\n  For all of the people who have said that I should resign because I\ncan't do my job, they are completely missing the point. I am absolutely\ncapable of doing my job, but because I am a woman and because I chose\nto have a baby, I have been prevented from doing so.\n  Mr. Speaker, I thank all of the people who have come forward on both\nsides of the aisle in support of this effort, and I know that our fight\nis far from over. We are not going to back down. We stand with the\npeople from across the country who have reached out, inspired to see\nsomebody like them who is struggling to manage having a new baby,\nbalancing work, and having a work environment that does not support\ntheir needs.\n  Once again, I thank Representative Luna for being a champion, as well\nas Representatives Jacobs and Lawler for all of their work on this. We\nwon't stop until we finally get this done.\n  Before I am done, I acknowledge Sam, who has now made four flights\nacross the country to change hearts and minds and also highlight the\nneed for reform here in Congress.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, the solution we are going to vote on today to allow\nmothers and fathers to continue to represent their constituents and to\nbe able to cast their votes is a great solution. It is one that existed\nin this Congress before. It is a tried and true method. It broadens the\nability of people to vote when they cannot be here to vote. We have had\nsituations where we have had people rolled in on gurneys to be able to\nvote.\n  Mr. Speaker, this is a much fairer way to do this in the way that we\nare doing it now.\n  I also remind my colleagues who are speaking against or saying we are\nnot dealing with the tariffs issue is that former Speaker Pelosi,\nSenator Schumer, and other Democrats railed against Chinese tariffs\nyears ago but did nothing about them. They even supported President\nBiden's preserving of the tariffs from the Chinese most recently, and\nthey said nothing about it here.\n  President Trump is doing something about the tariffs. He is\nresponding in ways that will strengthen the international economic\nposition of the United States and protect American workers. He is\nshowing leadership where the Democrats have shown none.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me correct the gentlewoman from North\nCarolina (Ms. Foxx). We are not voting on any kind of compromise here.\nIt is being deemed. Republicans have it tucked into the rule so that we\ndon't have a separate vote on it. We are not going to have a separate\ndebate on it. Yet, that is one of the tactics used so that we can't\nactually talk about it on the House floor.\n  Secondly, paired voting, if it was such a good idea, why did we get\nrid of it 25 years ago? Basically, it is a glorified way to highlight\nto people that Members are absent and not here voting. Ms. Pettersen's\nvote won't count if she is not here.\n  It is just a stupid, ridiculous way to try to deal with the issue at\nhand, which is that new moms and dads actually should be able to be\ngood moms and dads, stay with their kids at home, and be able to still\nrepresent their constituents.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman\nfrom Colorado (Ms. Pettersen) for any additional comments.\n  Ms. PETTERSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for\nyielding.\n  Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague, Representative Luna, has\ndone everything she can to try to find a path forward, and this is\nultimately the only option that existed at the end.\n  Yet, this does not address the real barriers that people continue to\nface. This would be the last week that I could have been home, still\nworking in my district, working as a Member of Congress and\nrepresenting my constituents but making sure that I was not traveling\nacross the country with my son.\n  Do my colleagues think that there would be one Republican here today\nwho would stand on my behalf and vote ``present'' on the bills coming\nforward this week?\n  I don't think so. This is why this is not a workable solution. This\nis not going to address when people are unable to be here for medical\nreasons and for the well-being of their kid after giving birth. While I\nappreciate trying to find whatever common ground we can, this is not a\ndeal. This does not solve our problem, and the work continues.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, Republicans should be ashamed of\nthemselves.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to be ashamed of. We are here solving\nproblems for the American people every day. We are responding to what\nwe were asked to do in the last election.\n  I just point out to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern)\nthat Republicans had a majority in the 118th Congress, the most recent\nCongress. We are now in the 119th Congress.\n  We deemed only two items that were passed in the Committee on Rules.\nIn the 117th Congress, when the Democrats controlled the Congress, they\ndeemed 38 different items as passed in the Committee on Rules.\n\n  There is an old saying, Mr. Speaker: ``Those who live in glass houses\nshouldn't throw stones.''\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, I laid out how Donald Trump's tariffs\nare causing chaos and hurting families. I will explain why we are\nunable to force a vote to block them here in the House, even though the\nInternational Emergency Economic Powers Act and the National\nEmergencies Act provide a process to terminate national emergencies\nthrough a privileged joint resolution.\n\n                        Parliamentary Inquiries\n\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the House Rules and Manual says here: ``A\nprivileged motion to discharge a committee from further consideration\nof a joint resolution terminating an emergency is available after the\nmeasure has been referred to committee for 15 calendar days.''\n  A Member of this House, Ranking Member Meeks, introduced H.J. Res.\n72, terminating the national emergency imposing tariffs on Canada, 34\ndays ago.\n  Earlier, I offered a motion to discharge his joint resolution from\ncommittee and bring it to the floor.\n  Mr. Speaker, why wasn't it allowed?\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman asking me?\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Yes.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's inquiry is not relevant to\nthe current proceedings.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, what I am just trying to figure out is\nwhether it is in order in the House to move to discharge H.J. Res. 72\nor H.J. Res. 73 from committee so that they can be considered on the\nfloor.\n  I guess we are not going to get an answer.\n  Mr. Speaker, it wasn't allowed because Republicans changed how time\nitself works in the House to prevent a vote on tariffs that is allowed\nunder the law.\n  Mr. Speaker, I will be clear here because the stakes are very high.\nWe are\n\n[[Page H1477]]\n\ntalking about whether this House has the authority under the current\nrules to stop the President of the United States from imposing\ndisastrous, calamitous tariffs that are causing economic chaos, raising\nprices for regular Americans, and causing uncertainty for businesses.\n  A motion to discharge Ranking Member Meeks' resolution is not allowed\nbecause Republicans literally changed the definition of what a day is\nto protect themselves from voting on tariffs.\n\n                              {time}  1245\n\n  Now, we should have been able to call it up after 15 days, but\nRepublicans are pretending 34 days is less than 15 days. Republicans\nrigged the rules to protect Donald Trump, Mr. Speaker, and to protect\nthemselves from voting on his tariffs.\n  H. Res. 211, which the Republican majority adopted in March, changed\nthe operation of the calendar.\n  Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state\nhis parliamentary inquiry.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have the resolution in front of me and\nit says that each day for the remainder of the first session of the\n119th Congress shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of\nsection 202 of the National Emergencies Act with respect to a joint\nresolution terminating a national emergency declared by the President\non February 1, 2025.\n  So that resolution changed the operation of the National Emergencies\nAct and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, also known as\nthe law, to make sure that Members of this House cannot force a vote on\nTrump's tariffs.\n  Is that right, Mr. Speaker?\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's inquiry is not relevant to\nthe discussion.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. In fact, that is right, Mr. Speaker. You may not want\nto opine on it, but the truth is, Republicans rigged the rules to\nprevent a vote on these tariffs, a vote that Members of this body would\nhave been able to demand if we were following the law. I want to get to\nthe bottom of why we can't vote on these tariffs.\n  Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state\nhis parliamentary inquiry.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the National Emergencies Act states that a\njoint resolution to terminate a national emergency passed by one House\nshall be referred to the appropriate committees of the other House at\nwhich point the 15-day clock would start if Republicans hadn't\nmagically stopped time.\n  According to that provision in law, Senator Kaine of Virginia's\nresolution terminating the national emergency to impose tariffs on\nCanada which was adopted by the Senate last week in a bipartisan vote,\nbut according to that, that bill must be referred to committee.\n  Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's inquiry is, again, not\nrelevant to the proceedings before the House.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Well, it is not relevant to the discussion because\nRepublicans won't let us discuss the tariffs, but that is certainly how\nI read ``shall,'' Mr. Speaker. Senator Kaine's resolution to force a\nvote on Trump's tariffs has been sitting on Speaker Johnson's desk\nsince last week.\n  Mr. Speaker, if a measure is held at the Speaker's desk, it is not\nsubject to a discharge petition and we can't have an up-or-down vote on\nthese tariffs. The Speaker of the House right now is singlehandedly\npreventing Members from forcing a vote on these tariffs, again, a right\nthat is in the law.\n  Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will state\nhis parliamentary inquiry.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure I understand\nthis. Why are Republicans rigging the rules to prevent a vote on\nTrump's tariffs?\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a proper\nparliamentary inquiry.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, you might not want to answer and you might\nnot like that I am pointing it out, but that is exactly what is\nhappening here.\n  Republicans have rigged the rules by literally redefining the\ndefinition of a day to prevent us from voting on Trump's tariffs, and\nthe Speaker of the House is locking the Senate resolution in his desk.\n  These are the types of procedural tricks that Republicans try to bury\nin the rules and hope that no one ever notices because they are too\nconfusing or too in the weeds. Not only did we notice, Mr. Speaker, but\nwe are going to make sure that the American people notice, too. One way\nor the other, the American people are going to render a verdict on what\nis happening here in this Chamber, and if it doesn't happen on this\nfloor, you can be damn sure it is going to happen at the ballot box.\n  These tariffs are going to be a disaster and the fact that\nRepublicans are too scared to stand up and vote for or against them\njust proves my point.\n  This is a disgrace. This is the people's House. We are supposed to\ndebate serious issues on this floor, and the Republican leadership of\nthis House is rigging the rules so we can't do that. That is absurd and\nthat is a national disgrace.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, we are not afraid to debate tariffs, but we have four\nbills to debate here today. That is the business that we need to be\ndealing with.\n  I will point out to my friends, again, people who live in glass\nhouses should not throw stones.\n  The Democrats love to claim foul on Republicans shutting off national\nemergencies, but perhaps they should reconsider given their own record\nwhen it comes to tolling day counts.\n  They want to claim that Republicans are stopping time, but perhaps\nthey forget just a few short years ago, in the Democrat-controlled\n117th Congress, their own House rules package, H. Res. 8, conveniently\nstopped time for both legislative and calendar days regarding a myriad\nof processes.\n  Let me read, Mr. Speaker, from their rules:\n  ``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not\nconstitute a calendar day for purposes of section 7 of the War Powers\nResolution, 50 U.S.C. 1546.\n  ``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not\nconstitute a legislative day for purposes of clause 7 of Rule XIII.\n  ``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not\nconstitute a calendar or legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1)\nof Rule XII.''\n  Now, what is this, the pot calling the kettle black? I am just not\nsure of that. I do think it is important, though, to remind our\ncolleagues on the other side of the aisle that this happened. Mr.\nMcGovern wants the country to know what is going on here. We want the\ncountry to know what is going on here, too.\n  Let me say that this is a package that all four minority members of\nour committee voted in favor of, by the way. These manipulations were\nmaintained for nearly 18 months in subsequent rules with continued\nsupport by the committee's minority counterparts.\n  Similarly, when it comes to the National Emergencies Act, in a rule\nthey permanently blocked votes terminating the COVID national\nemergency, despite Mr. Gosar introducing two separate disapproval\nresolutions.\n  Mr. Speaker, be careful what you accuse us of because we have the\nfacts and the record on our side.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  Mr. Speaker, what you just heard from the distinguished Chairwoman of\nthe Rules Committee is basically that the Republicans are too afraid to\ndebate and vote on tariffs. That is what we just heard. What is really\ninteresting is that in this rule that they are bringing to the floor,\nthey have a bill that will actually raise bank fees on consumers,\nbelieve it or not. They want to give banks the authority to charge more\nfor overdrafts. That is in this bill.\n  They are too busy to talk about the fact that Donald Trump is raising\nthe cost of living and the cost of everything for average people in\nthis country, but they are not too busy to talk\n\n[[Page H1478]]\n\nabout having banks raise bank fees on citizens of this country.\n  This is so messed up it is hard to believe. Right now, if you talk to\nanybody in your district, if you did townhalls, which I know\nRepublicans don't want to do anymore--but if you did townhalls, people\nare really nervous about not only the stock market and the uncertainty\nthere, but they are really nervous about rising prices.\n  People are trying to make ends meet and they are really concerned\nabout what is happening. Yet, Republicans are just too busy to talk\nabout the impact of these tariffs on their constituents here in the\nHouse of Representatives?\n  Let that sink in, Mr. Speaker. This is ludicrous.\n  Mr. Speaker, I ask that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I\nwill offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.J. Res. 91, a joint\nresolution to terminate the reckless tariffs that President Trump has\nput in place.\n  These tariffs are the largest middle-class tax increase in the last\n50 years. Consumers are worried because their prices are skyrocketing\nand iPhone prices could go up as much as $350. Every American with a\nretirement account is worried because they are seeing their savings\nevaporate. The S&P 500 registered its worst week since March 2020 when\nDonald Trump, by the way, was also President.\n  Farmers are worried because the tariffs might put them out of\nbusiness. Some of them are already renting out their land since they\nknow they likely won't be able to make anything in 2025.\n  The result of all this needless chaos: less money in consumers'\npockets, less confidence in our country, and less certainty about our\nfuture. That is why we must bring up H.J. Res. 91 to put Republicans on\nrecord, to let Congress do our jobs, and to keep our constituents'\nhard-earned money in their pockets.\n  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my\namendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,\nimmediately prior to the vote on the previous question.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the\ngentleman from Massachusetts?\n  There was no objection.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\\1/2\\ minutes to the gentleman\nfrom New York (Mr. Meeks) to discuss our proposal.\n  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for allowing me to\nspeak. I thank the ranking member for all of his hard work because for\nsure what the President of the United States has done was lied to the\nAmerican people and broke a promissory note.\n  That promissory note was that he told the American people on day one,\ninflation would go down. Prices would go down on day one, he said.\nInstead, what the President has done is, unleashed an economic chaos on\nthe American people. Recessions are normally caused by complex factors\nlike oil price shocks, overleveraged financial markets, or global\npandemics.\n  This new economic disaster isn't caused by war or by an act of\nnature. It is the result of one man who lied to the American people.\nHis name is Donald J. Trump.\n  With no coherent plan, he is imposing the largest peacetime tax\nincrease in American history. That is what tariffs are: taxes that will\nincrease the cost of living, your food, the car you need to drive to\nwork, your appliances, and your electronics. All of it will increase\nwhat the average family will spend by more than $5,000 a year.\n  Trump has launched a trade war that has united our allies and our\nadversaries against us. I could go on and on about the absurd\nincompetence underpinning Trump's trade war: the pseudo emergency used\nas an authority, the nonsense methodology used to justify the tariff\nrates, or the ever-changing rationale about the reasons for starting\nthis tariff tantrum.\n  The tariffs have already triggered a stock market plunge, wiping out\ntrillions of dollars in value. That is the hard-saved money for your\nchildren's education, for your 401(k), and for your dreams of\nretirement. It is only going to get worse.\n  As prices go up, people will have less money to eat at their local\nrestaurants, see a movie, enjoy a family vacation. That means lower\ndemand, slower growth, job losses in every sector of our economy from\nMain Street shops to factory floors.\n  The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the\ngentleman from New York.\n  Mr. MEEKS. While Trump may have started this, if this Republican\nmajority chooses to duck a vote on my resolution ending these tariffs,\nthen they will own this, too. They will own the higher prices. They\nwill own the jobs lost. They will own the retirement savings erased.\nThey will own all of it.\n  Mr. Speaker, join us, sign on, and stop this tax of American people.\nThis is what should be happening for us to continue to be the greatest\nNation on the planet and make sure that things are affordable for the\nAmerican people. Let's join together in defeating the previous question\nand put an end to this self-imposed economic wrecking ball.\n\n                              {time}  1300\n\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from\nengaging in personalities toward the President.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the Reading Clerk told us what we were here to\ndo today. In my opening remarks, I read out what it is we are here to\ndo today. We have a rule, and then we are going to have four bills to\nvote on. That is what we are here for.\n  Our Democratic colleagues are desperate. They do not want to talk\nabout this rule and what it does or the underlying bills. They want us\nto try to look at shiny objects over here, Mr. Speaker, that have\nnothing to do with what we are here to do today.\n  What Republicans want to do is focus on what we are here to do today.\nWe could talk about tariffs sometime, yes. We are happy to do that, but\nlet's talk about what we have to do here.\n  The Democrats don't want to talk about these because they correct\nissues that the Biden administration did wrong, these midnight rules of\nthe CFPB. They don't want to talk about the rogue judges who have been\noverruled by the Supreme Court. They don't want to talk about what is\nhappening here and now. They want to try to distract the American\npeople with other issues.\n  Mr. Speaker, let's deal with the issues at hand. Let's focus on\nthose, do our job as Members of Congress, and get on with our business\ntoday.\n  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I talked about all\nthese issues last week. I talked about how I was opposed to the bill\nthat raises bank fees on regular people. I talked about how their bill\nto make it more difficult for women to vote was a bad idea. I talked\nabout the importance of helping new parents be able to vote by proxy.\n  Forgive me if I am not following your made-up rules, but we already\ndiscussed all this stuff last week.\n  When is the time that we are going to actually talk about the tariffs\nand about the fact that Donald Trump is raising prices on average\npeople in this country? When are we going to have time to do that?\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico\n(Ms. Stansbury).\n  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying welcome back to\nmy friends across the aisle. It is really nice to have them back here\nin the people's House, especially after last week.\n  Their leadership shut down the United States House of Representatives\nrather than accommodate new moms voting remotely with a newborn child.\nStellar work, my friends. You have simultaneously managed to shut down\nthe House and enrage millions of moms across America.\n  The American people actually want a government that represents them,\nand that is why they are also outraged by the agenda that Republicans\nhave in this rule and are putting on the House floor this week,\nincluding the SAVE Act, which would disenfranchise millions of\nAmericans, including millions of married women. You refuse to take up\nan amendment that would protect them, so congratulations to my friends.\n  How about the No Rogue Rulings Act that is also being heard this\nweek? It would undermine the courts.\n\n[[Page H1479]]\n\n  There are a couple of bills to roll back consumer protections to keep\nbanks from ripping them off.\n  Is that your agenda? That is it? You are going to rip off American\nconsumers, undermine their voting rights, undermine the judiciary, and\ninsult moms? Cool. Yes, this sounds like a great agenda.\n  Oh, I forgot, you are also going to tank the economy while Donald\nTrump is playing golf, and you are going to try to pass a budget that\nliterally will cost the American people $37 trillion over the next 30\nyears while gutting their Medicaid and their food and housing\nassistance.\n  Now, luckily, the American people are not falling for it, and\nmillions of Americans are speaking out and marching in the streets. It\nis because of their actions that Elon Musk--thank you very much--is\nfinally leaving the building.\n  Make no mistake, this agenda will continue, as we see here this week.\nThat is why it is vital that the American people continue to speak up\nand speak out, keep marching, keep showing up, and keep telling these\nfolks that we reject their agenda and its harmful impacts to the\nAmerican people, and we will not allow it to continue.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks\nto the Chair.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.\n  I am going to take a little time to address the importance of the No\nRogue Rulings Act and why the American people are demanding action\nagainst this unchecked abuse of nationwide injunctions.\n  The fact is activist liberal judges have been utilizing nationwide\ninjunctions in an unprecedented fashion. There have been 17 identified\ncases in which Federal courts issued nationwide injunctions between\nJanuary 20, 2025, and March 27, 2025, against the Trump administration.\n  Compare this to the 19 injunctions issued during the entire Obama\nPresidency, 8 years, Mr. Speaker. Fifty-five such injunctions were\nissued against the first Trump administration, 4 years, Mr. Speaker. If\nwe look back to the Presidency of George W. Bush, only 12 nationwide\ninjunctions were issued in 8 years. Some estimate that only 27\nnationwide injunctions were issued in the 20th century. This\nexponential increase demands action.\n  Nationwide injunctions frequently extend far beyond the immediate\nparties in a lawsuit, affecting entire populations and jurisdictions\nnot involved in the original dispute. These overreaching rulings create\nsignificant uncertainty about Federal policies, drain taxpayer\nresources, and embolden unelected judges to subvert the will of the\nAmerican people by thwarting the democratically elected President and\nCongress.\n  Article III authorizes Congress to determine what types of cases\ninferior courts have jurisdiction to review. In some past cases,\nCongress has exercised this power by stripping Federal courts of\njurisdiction to hear certain classes of cases, but that drastic action\nis avoided in this legislation. Instead, it takes a very measured\napproach. The bill would curtail the scope of injunctive relief but\nstill allow for nationwide injunction under the appropriate\ncircumstances.\n\n  Injunctions would still be permitted. What won't be permitted is\nhaving an activist judge from a liberal enclave in the country impose a\ndecision that goes far beyond the subject presented before him or her\nin the courtroom.\n  The American people shouldn't be robbed of exercising their policy\npreferences by judicial extremism, and it would apply evenly to future\nDemocratic and Republican administrations alike.\n  The policies being put forth by the Trump administration are novel,\ncreative, and bold. That is what the American people expected when they\nvoted for President Trump. Just because a policy is untested or\nunprecedented doesn't mean it is illegal. Democrats may impugn\nPresident Trump all they want, but these fundamental constitutional\nconcerns are best settled at the appellate level.\n  This legislation does nothing to affect the proper avenues for\nconstitutional challenges. Congress has always reserved this power to\nbring order to the judicial branch. We simply want to impose some order\non the chaotic episodes unfolding in our courts.\n  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this, and I reserve the\nbalance of my time.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, gee, I wonder why this administration more\nthan any other administration has so many injunctions against it.\n  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.\nGreen).\n  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain why new moms\ncannot proxy vote. The issue is very simple, and the answer is even\nsimpler to understand. It is because men don't have children.\n  If men had children, there would be proxy voting. After all, it was\nover 100 years that this facility was in place, and we did not have a\nfacility for ladies, a ladies' room.\n  Men have taken for granted the needs of women, and if women would but\nonly stand up across the board in this House, if all the women would,\nwe could get this done, but there are some women who are still siding\nwith men, who don't want women to have the right to vote when they are\nnew moms.\n  I am saying ``new parents'' now, but I am talking about moms. I think\nevery man has a good reason to want to do this because you ought to\nrespect the person who carried you for 9 months, labored with you, and\ngave you the breath of life. It is time to make a change.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is\nremaining.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\\1/2\\\nminutes remaining.\n  The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 6\\1/2\\ minutes remaining.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.\n  It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. The entire world is watching in\nastonishment as Donald Trump lights the American economy on fire.\n  Our voters deserve to know where their Members of Congress stand on\nthese tariffs. I just tried to force a vote. I was shut down because\nthe truth is they know this will be a disaster, and that is why they\nare blocking Democrats from demanding a vote.\n  Republicans don't want to lower costs anymore. They want to lower the\nstandard of living, and that is exactly what these tariffs will do.\n  Now, let's be clear. Foreign countries don't pay the tariffs. We do.\nAmerican businesses, American farmers, American families, that is who\npays the tariffs, and unfortunately, the damage has been done.\n  Our trading partners are abandoning us. Our allies don't trust us.\nOur adversaries are laughing at us. The cherry on top is that Trump\ncan't even explain the goal. He is slapping tariffs on everyone,\nincluding uninhabited islands but not on Russia, no tariffs on Russia.\nThere are tariffs on Ukraine, but not on Russia. I am sure Putin is\nthrilled.\n  This is a gut punch to middle America. This is a tax on every single\nfamily in America. This is a disaster for our future. Congress needs to\ndo its job. It is time for every Republican to put their name on this\nmess or finally stand up and stop it.\n  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my\ntime.\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.\n  Mr. Speaker, I have to respond about the fact that we are denying new\nmothers and prospective mothers the opportunity to vote with this\nlegislation. That is just not true. It is going to need to be refuted\nover and over again.\n  What we have done is accommodate not only prospective and new mothers\nbut we have also accommodated other Members who might need that\naccommodation. Let me be clear about that. That is absolutely true.\n  Mr. Speaker, House Republicans remain laser focused on governing and\nadvancing legislation that addresses pertinent issues across the\nNation. Our foot is placed firmly upon the gas pedal of solving\nproblems the American people want us to solve.\n  The four pieces of legislation that will be considered under this\nrule are part of our governing efforts and are in alignment with the\nmandate that Americans gave us last November. Shielding consumer\nchoice, protecting consumer choice, and combating foreign influence\nwithin higher education in America are issues that Americans care\nabout. We have heard their concerns, and we are addressing them yet\nagain this week.\n\n[[Page H1480]]\n\n  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous\nquestion and ``yes'' on the rule.\n  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:\n\n  An Amendment to H. Res. 294 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts\n\n       At the end of the resolution, add the following:\n       Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the\n     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the\n     joint resolution (H.J. Res. 91) relating to a national\n     emergency by the President on April 2, 2025. All points of\n     order against consideration of the joint resolution are\n     waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All\n     points of order against provisions in the joint resolution\n     are waived. The previous question shall be considered as\n     ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto,\n     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one\n     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair\n     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign\n     Affairs or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to\n     recommit.\n       Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the\n     consideration of H.J. Res. 91.\n\n  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I\nmove the previous question on the resolution.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous\nquestion.\n  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that\nthe ayes appeared to have it.\n  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.\n  The yeas and nays were ordered.\n  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further\nproceedings on this question will be postponed.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-2025-04-08-pt1-PgH1473-2"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 14.158746926113963, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}