We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
08House Bill and Joint Resolution Approved by the President
09Senate Bill and Joint Resolution Approved by the President
10Enrolled Joint Resolution Signed
11Bill Presented to the President
Daily Digest
Public Bills and Resolutions Introduced
60 public bills, H.R. 2528- 2587; and 9 resolutions, H. Con. Res. 24-25; and H. Res. 283-289, were introduced.
Pages H1401-04
Report Filed
A report was filed today as follows: H. Res. 282, providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 18) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (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''; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1526) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 22) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes; and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-49).
Page H1401
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Maloy to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H1379
Recess
The House recessed at 11:14 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H1387
Notification of Intent to Offer Motion to Discharge
Representative Luna notified the House of her intent to offer a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XV from the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 164) entitled, a resolution providing for the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 23) permitting parental remote voting by proxy.
Page H1387
Disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending
Very Large Financial Institutions'', 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'', No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, and Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act--Rule for Consideration: The House failed to agree to H. Res. 282, providing for consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 18) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (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''; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1526) to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief; and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 22) to amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, by a recorded vote of 206 ayes to 222 noes, Roll No. 87, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 215 yeas to 213 nays, Roll No. 86.
Pages H1389-99
Suspension: Proceedings Resumed
The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass the following measure. Consideration began Monday, March 31st. Disaster Related Extension of Deadlines Act: H.R. 1491, amended, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the postponement of certain deadlines by reason of disasters applicable to the limitation on credit or refund, and to take postponements into account for purposes of sending collection notices, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 423 yeas with none voting ``nay'', Roll No. 88.
Page H1399
Committee Election
The House agreed to H. Res. 283, electing a Member to a certain standing committee of the House of Representatives.
Page H1399
Recess
The House recessed at 2:42 p.m. and reconvened at 5:43 p.m.
Page H1400
Work Period Designation
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he designated the period from Tuesday, April 1, 2025, through Sunday, April 6, 2025, as a ``district work period'' under clause 13 of rule 1.
Page H1400
Quorum Calls: Votes
Two yea-and-nay votes and one recorded vote developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H1398, H1398-99 and H1399. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 5:44 p.m.
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 103 of 134 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Morning-Hour Debate
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 3, 2025, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties and each Member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
Madam Speaker, I have been blessed to work with some of the most talented staffers ever to walk the Halls of Congress, but the greater the blessing, the harder the good-bye.
Recently, I bid farewell to my director of operations, Wendy Hamilton, and my senior adviser, Michael Reed, two pillars of the House Democratic Caucus.
Let me start with the one and only Wendy Hamilton. I am so pleased she is here with us today in the Chamber. Wendy joined my team back when I was vice chair. I knew I had hired a talented and passionate Hill staffer. She had already completed tours of duty with Pramila Jayapal, Brenda Lawrence, and Kathy Castor.
One by one, I also started realizing she had many off-book skills under her belt, whether it was flower arrangements, style advice, or frank and forthright guidance at Sephora.
Along the way, she was putting the service in Member Services, becoming something of a celebrity. Everyone she worked with was grateful for Wendy's expert knowledge, her helpful hints, and her deep insight into how to get things done for constituents.
More times than I can count, I met a district director halfway across the country, and when I introduced myself as a Congresswoman, they would say: Wait, you work with Wendy Hamilton? I was always proud to say: I sure do.
Then there is the Member whisperer himself, Michael Reed, an adviser who has been essential to my first 2 years as whip. A wise counselor for colleagues across the Caucus, Michael has that instinct for figuring people out, meeting them where they are, and getting them to where they need to be.
Here is what you need to know about Michael: You can ask the Speaker Emerita or a new intern, and they will both rave over him in equal measure. They will tell you about his fundamental kindness. They will tell you he is a selfless mentor to those trying to follow in his footsteps, and they will tell you he is just plain cool. He is the only guy in D.C. who can look cool zooming around on a Lime scooter, the only man who can pull off wearing joggers with a suit jacket, and the only person who could ever make Eagles fans seem chill.
I am sorry to say good-bye to these two dear friends. I am so grateful to everything they have given to Team Clark, to this institution, and to the American people.
To Michael and Keenan, to Wendy, Marvin, and Hendrix, thank you for everything, and the best of luck in all that lies ahead.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to share a huge win for Texas agriculture.
Recently, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins joined me in south Texas to announce the deployment of $280 million in economic relief that I secured for our Texas farmers.
Farmers and ranchers in the Rio Grande Valley have been struggling for way too long. Mexico's refusal to comply with the 1944 Water Treaty, coupled with drought conditions, has devastated south Texas agriculture.
Last year, the last sugar mill in Texas closed, leaving just two regions with the ability to produce sugar. After hearing from south Texas farmers and ranchers, citrus could be next, and this economic relief is absolutely critical to sustaining their businesses.
Any impact on Texas agriculture, one of the largest agricultural States, will affect the entire country through severe supply chain disruptions and higher grocery prices for American families.
For 4 years, the Biden administration failed to hold the Mexican Government accountable and secure the water that Texas farmers desperately needed. With President Trump in office, I am now optimistic that we will win the war for water. Their decision to deploy the critical aid demonstrates the administration's commitment to safeguarding the backbone of our Nation's economy: agriculture.
In addition to the emergency aid, the Trump administration has put its foot down. The State Department is holding the Mexican Government accountable by blocking Mexico's nontreaty request for water from the Colorado River. This is a major win in prioritizing our farmers and ranchers, and it is encouraging to have the support of President Trump in this fight.
This is just the beginning of the war for water. I will continue to work to ensure Mexico's compliance with the treaty and deliver the much-needed water to south Texas.
Madam Speaker, today I rise to celebrate Texas U.S. Navy veteran Mr. Charlie Willmann's 100th birthday.
Born on March 31, 1925, in Seguin, Texas, Mr. Willmann's roots have run deep in our great State of Texas, from growing up on a farm, graduating from Seguin High School, to attending Texas A&M to study agriculture education. His commitment to service took him into the U.S. Navy during World War II, where he not only selflessly served his country but also met the love of his life, Patricia.
Following his service, Mr. Willmann finished his degree and worked for Sears, Roebuck before returning to his roots. In Seguin, he managed the family farm he grew up on and raised his family: three children, five grandchildren, and now five great-grandchildren.
His dedication to work, whether raising cattle or cultivating award- winning pecans, embodies his unwavering commitment to doing things right.
Mr. Willmann's influence extends far beyond his family. He served his community on numerous boards, including Texas Farm Bureau and in his role as the county commissioner.
I thank Mr. Willmann for all of his work in our community in this great country we live in. Today, we celebrate a birthday party, an incredible century of life. Let us congratulate Charlie on this wonderful milestone.
Here is to Charlie, 100 years strong and still inspiring us all. We wish him a happy birthday and God bless him.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak out against another outrageous move by Donald Trump: his attack on the National Institutes of Health.
The NIH is not just another governmental agency, it is the foundation of America's medical research. It funds lifesaving breakthroughs that doctors and scientists rely on to treat and cure diseases. It supports the work that helps us fight cancer, Alzheimer's, heart disease, diabetes, and rare genetic disorders. It fuels innovation that leads to better treatment, more effective medications, and new medical technologies. Yet, Donald Trump and the Republicans in this building want to gut it.
Trump has proposed slashing billions of dollars from the NIH budget, which would cripple research, stall medical progress, and put American lives at risk. These cuts would mean fewer clinical trials, new treatments and advances in the fights against the diseases that impact millions of Americans. Every person in this country, every patient battling illness, every doctor searching for answers, and every family hoping for a cure would feel the consequences of these disastrous cuts.
Let's be clear about what is at stake. The NIH funds over 300,000 researchers across the country, supporting studies that have led to some of the most important medical breakthroughs in history. This funding helped develop treatments that have increased cancer survival rates, improved heart disease prevention, and even led to vaccines that protect us from deadly viruses. It is responsible for nearly every major medical advancement of the last century.
These cuts are not just numbers on a spreadsheet. They are a direct threat to American lives and health. If Trump and Republicans succeed in slashing NIH funding, it means that crucial research into diseases like Parkinson's, ALS, and multiple sclerosis will be delayed or abandoned altogether. It means that hospitals and research centers will struggle to continue their work. It means that the next big breakthrough, the next cure, the next lifesaving drug, the next medical innovation that can save each one of our families and your family could be lost forever.
For Texas, the consequences would be severe. In 2023 alone, the NIH invested over $1.5 billion into Texas research institutions. This funding supports critical work at UT Southwestern in Dallas, where scientists are pioneering new cancer treatments; at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, where researchers are leading the fight against Alzheimer's and heart disease; and at the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M, where cutting-edge biomedical research is shaping the future of medicine. If Trump's cuts go through, these institutions will lose the funding they need to continue their vital work.
This attack on the NIH is part of a larger pattern. This is the same Donald Trump leading an administration that rejects science. He is threatening all of our health. He downplayed COVID-19, costing hundreds of thousands of American lives. He ignored public health experts and spread antiscience conspiracy theories while hospitals were overrun with dying patients. Trump already tried to cut NIH funding before, only to be stopped by a Democratic Congress. This time he is taking direct aim at the very institution that helps doctors and scientists find cures, save lives, and protect public health.
We cannot afford to let this happen. We must fight back. If we care about our families, health, and future, we must reject these reckless cuts and demand more funding for NIH, not less. The research being conducted today will determine the treatments available tomorrow, and the investment we make in science now will save lives for generations to come.
This is not a partisan issue. Well, rather, it should not be a partisan issue. Disease does not care whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. Cancer doesn't check your voter registration. Alzheimer's doesn't ask where you fall on the ideological spectrum. This is about protecting the health of every single American.
I urge my colleagues in Congress and every American listening to stand up for science, stand up for medical research, stand up for the NIH. The health of all of our families could depend on it.
Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate one of Arkansas's own, Peyton Bolling. She was crowned recently as Miss America's Teen, and she made history in doing so, the first Miss Arkansas' Teen to win the coveted title of Miss America's Teen.
Madam Speaker, this comes just a year after another Arkansan, in this case, Madison Marsh of Fort Smith, Arkansas, was crowned Miss America 2024.
When Peyton Bolling came to my office last year, she shared with me her passion for civic engagement, an issue that demands the attention of our next generation of leaders. Her passion to serve began at a young age as a daughter of a U.S. Marine Corps colonel.
Peyton's dedication only grew in time as she witnessed government in action as a U.S. Senate page. Now, she is taking her passion nationwide, encouraging our young people to get involved and shape their communities for the better.
This Rogers, Arkansas, native and proud Bentonville High School Tiger has made Arkansas proud.
I congratulate Peyton. I look forward to seeing all that she accomplishes as Miss America's Teen and beyond.
Madam Speaker, we are witnessing yet another shameful
House Republicans are forcing a vote this week on the so-called SAVE Act, a bill that does nothing to stop inflation from driving up grocery prices, nothing to end Donald Trump's trade war that is pummeling the stock market, and nothing to protect Americans' retirements. Instead, this is a messaging bill, sloppily written and dangerously flawed, designed to create confusion and chaos in our electoral system rather than strengthen it.
The SAVE Act claims to prevent noncitizens from voting in Federal elections. At first glance, that may seem logical, if not for the fact that it is already illegal and has been for decades. Noncitizens caught voting in Federal elections already face deportation and even jail time.
Time and again, when pressed for evidence of widespread noncitizen voting, Republicans have failed to produce a single credible example. The reason? Because the problem they claim to be solving simply doesn't exist.
Why are we here today? Why are we debating a bill that addresses a nonexistent problem while hardworking American families are struggling with rising costs and economic insecurity? Because Republicans in Congress don't have real solutions. Rather than addressing the issues that matter, like lowering grocery costs and helping families get ahead, they are prioritizing a bill that disenfranchises millions of American women.
Roughly 69 million women, about 25 percent of eligible voters in our country, have IDs that do not match their birth certificates, usually because they changed their name once they got married. Under this bill, if they don't have a passport--and half of Americans don't--they wouldn't be able to register to vote.
Think about that: Tens of millions of women, the backbone of our families and our communities, stripped of their right to vote simply because they got married.
Imagine a woman who has voted in every election since she turned 18, who pays her taxes, who contributes to her community. One day, she learns that because her name changed when she got married, she is suddenly unable to register to vote in her State.
No amount of documentation, no Social Security card, no marriage license, no previous voter registration will satisfy the requirements of this bill unless she possesses an updated passport or a birth certificate that matches her current name.
This isn't just bureaucratic nonsense. It is an outrageous attack on the rights of women across our country.
The worst part, Madam Speaker, is that Republicans have known that this was an issue with this bill for years, and they have done nothing to fix it. They either don't care that millions of American women will be stripped of their right to vote or that has been their goal all along. Either way, this is going to create chaos in every State in America, and it is going to make it harder for Americans to participate in their democracy.
It appears to be the latest in a long series of tactics, like polling place closures and gerrymandering, designed to silence voters that Republican politicians don't think they can win.
That is not how democracy works. You don't get to silence millions of Americans just because they might not like your policies. You represent them, too.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous legislation and protect the rights of every eligible voter in the country because our democracy is strongest when every voice is heard and every vote is counted.
Madam Speaker, I wanted to speak a little bit about the SAVE Act and what it is supposed to do to ensure election integrity for our country.
The commentary that this is somehow going to disenfranchise people who normally vote is just part of the rhetoric of this place that obscures that our elections aren't completely secure when we have millions of illegal immigrants in this country who have been given driver's licenses, IDs, without having passed the muster of actually doing citizenship efforts.
Why should that apply to elections? You already see municipalities around this country trying to give the right, the privilege, of votes to people who are not here legally.
In the previous example given, if someone has had a recent marriage but their name doesn't quite match yet because they haven't gotten their legal documents, there is a provision for that called provisional voting that you can utilize at that time of election and then go through the process of proving, yes, this is my citizenship in order to ensure that we have elections with integrity.
When our elections are key to deciding who makes the laws in this country, who makes the policy decisions, they need to be secure. If we can't trust the people in office who are actually chosen by American citizens, what exactly do we have?
Only American citizens are supposed to vote in Federal elections. Weak laws have made it, as I mentioned, easier now for noncitizens to get on the voter rolls in certain municipalities.
When President Biden took office, that administration let at least 4.6 million illegal immigrants into the country, with nearly 2 million more slipping in without being stopped, and these are probably low numbers. It is hard to estimate.
Some blue States, as I mentioned, have given these individuals driver's licenses and other benefits, which then can help them in loosely run State election rolls illegally register to vote in Federal elections. We need to draw the line at least at Federal election levels.
Some blue cities have let them vote in local elections to cause even more confusion and abuse of the process. It is deliberate.
Federal law has blocked States from requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote, making it easier for the system to be exploited. That is actually against the Constitution.
How would the SAVE Act go about fixing this? Chip Roy's SAVE Act would require proof of U.S. citizenship and identity shown in person at the place of election when registering or on voting day. This rule would apply either when someone signs up at the DMV, a government office, or through the mail.
Making fair exceptions, if someone is a citizen but doesn't have the usual paperwork, like for religious reasons, they could go through, as I mentioned, an alternative process with strict rules like sworn affidavits.
The bill also makes sure there are accommodations for disabled Americans so they aren't wrongly excluded.
It addresses cases when someone's documentation might not match their legal name, as I mentioned here, with their name change through marriage, divorce, or adoption.
Some people, especially married women, may face these issues if their IDs don't exactly match. Under the SAVE Act, it would require setting up a process in the States to confirm the identity in these cases, therefore allowing them to vote while it is being sorted out.
It could include showing legal documents like a marriage certificate or a court order proving a name change. These provisions ensure that legitimate voters aren't turned away while still keeping strong safeguards against fraud.
In cleaning up the voter rolls, the SAVE Act requires States to remove noncitizens from voter rolls and gives them access to Federal databases to help verify citizenship at no cost to the States. Election officials that ignore these rules or allow noncitizens to register can be sued and penalized, as they should be.
The Election Assistance Commission will also update Federal registration forms to make sure these new security measures are properly put in place. This matters because Americans deserve to know that their vote counts and isn't canceled out by illegal ballots. What an insult.
This isn't about politics. It is making sure only legal voters decide who represents us in Washington, as well as at the State and local levels, as it should be.
The SAVE Act is a simple, commonsense way to restore trust in our elections and keep them honest. If we want
The SAVE Act helps to protect our democracy--which isn't really a democracy; it is a republic--enforce our laws, and make sure that American citizens, not foreign nationals, decide our future. It is common sense. Let's get it done.
Mr. Speaker, I rise with deep shock, concern, and outrage at the carelessness of the Trump administration in disclosing highly sensitive operational military plans on a commercial chat platform that included a reporter.
Without a doubt, this reckless incompetence put our servicewomen and -men in danger.
Last week, I received a call from a constituent whose son is deployed abroad in the region. His son's mission was personally put at risk by the very same people charged with safeguarding our Armed Forces who put their lives on the line for us.
This Arizona father and his son sacrifice for our country, and we should all be ashamed that this is how their service is repaid.
The Trump administration officials who set up and participated in this Signal chat debacle should have taken responsibility for their egregious mistake and instantly offered their resignation for having violated the law, contravened common sense, and put American troops in harm's way.
Let me put it this way: Not only did the National Security Advisor set up an illegal, unsecured chat with the Secretary of Defense, the CIA Director, the Vice President, and others to discuss highly, highly sensitive and imminent attack plans, but they also bungled their way into adding a random person into the chat.
We should not be surprised in the slightest that the Trump administration treats our Nation's secrets this way. This is the same man, after all, who had our nuclear codes sitting in his bathroom in Mar-a-Lago. The way that the administration has handled this entire calamity has been equally as dangerous.
Secretary of Defense Hegseth straight-up lied. He said there was no classified information on the chat, that he didn't share attack plans, and that no troops were put in harm's way.
Then, there is our Director of National Intelligence, who is supposedly our Nation's most trusted, meticulous secretkeeper, who went before the Senate to mislead, evade, and perjure herself. What a truly disgraceful episode.
This is not a partisan issue. In fact, both the chair and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, in a bipartisan manner, requested that the Pentagon investigate the use of the Signal app to share classified information.
We can all agree that no government employee, let alone a Cabinet member, should be sharing classified information in a Signal chat and be careless enough to add a reporter to it, as well. There should be a serious after action review to prevent this from ever happening again and one that considers the criminality involved.
Yet another Trump lackey, our Attorney General, who is officially supposed to be the people's lawyer, is ruling out a criminal investigation into this scheme altogether.
Mr. Speaker, these are the same people that spent the better part of a decade looking into Hillary's emails. They evidently do not care to even pretend to investigate how our Nation's most secret information is being shared.
The ramifications of this unmitigated disaster will be felt for years, even decades, to come. Why would any of our allies share sensitive information with us if the Secretary of Defense is just going to pop it into a group chat and share it with the editor in chief of a national publication?
In conjunction with all of the other actions the Trump administration has taken to dismiss or turn our backs on our allies, I am deeply concerned about how Signal-gate will make us much, much less safe in the long term. Our Nation deserves better. Our servicewomen and servicemen deserve better. We deserve better.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take you back 100 years to the year 1925. ``The Great Gatsby'' had just been published. In this very Chamber, the House voted to authorize the construction of Mount Rushmore. Entertainment legend Dick Van Dyke was born.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 100th birthday of someone else born that same year, 1925, an American hero named Leonard Messineo of Amelia Island, Florida. Born on April 30, 1925, Len served bravely in World War II with the Army's 20th Armored Division. In April 1945, just days before the war in Europe ended, his unit fought through heavy resistance, helped liberate the Dachau concentration camp, and patrolled Hitler's vacated Eagle's Nest.
Hitler took his own life on Len's 20th birthday; and Len proudly marks his birthday each year, saying that he celebrates April 30 for Hitler's demise.
After the war, Len earned an engineering degree on the GI Bill and built a successful career in manufacturing, including for the U.S. Army. He later became an award-winning nature photographer.
Len's greatest legacy is his family which includes two daughters, Deb and Lynn, four grandchildren, three great-grandchildren, and even a grand-dog named Charlie.
We wish Len a happy 100th birthday. We thank him for his service, his life, and his enduring example. May God continue to bless him.
Mr. Speaker, when you are lost, you need to find the way. In Clay County, Florida, when you need medical care and don't know where to turn, you need to find The Way Free Medical Clinic.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the retirement of Mr. Don Fann who served as executive director of The Way Free Medical Clinic from 2017 to 2024.
When Don first joined The Way Clinic in 2017 as interim director, his task was clear. It was to stabilize a struggling organization and ensure its continued service to those most in need. Not only, Mr. Speaker, did he meet that challenge but he also exceeded every expectation.
Through his tireless efforts to secure funding, forge partnerships, and implement sustainable programs, Don guided the clinic through a time of transformation. Today, the brand new Way Free Medical Clinic building offers both medical and dental services to countless individuals who otherwise would go without.
Don's professional success is only matched by his personal dedication. Don consistently placed the needs of others above his own. His empathy, resilience, and quiet determination inspired those around him to become hallmarks of the clinic's culture. His values of service, compassion, and hope are now woven into the very identity of The Way Free Medical Clinic.
As Don Fann retires, I join many in thanking him for his years of outstanding service and leadership. May the next chapter of his life be filled with the same purpose, joy, and generosity that defined him and his time at The Way Free Medical Clinic. We are proud of him.
Mr. Speaker, as we close Women's History Month, I rise to honor a few great women in my district, women like Shannon Goodrich, a leader of the Elmhurst chapter of Moms Demand Action.
Shannon joined the group after attending a fireside chat about school safety in her community. Like all parents, she was concerned about what local leaders were doing to keep children safe from the tragic epidemic of school shootings. Shannon saw that she could play an important role as a mom and as a member of her community.
Over the past 6 years, Shannon has written thousands of postcards, knocked on thousands of doors, made thousands of phone calls, and sent thousands of texts all in the name of gun violence prevention.
Shannon's passion for this work has only grown as she has met and become friends with local survivors of gun violence. Shannon works in their name and hopes to inspire many others to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Shannon for her dedication and commitment to keeping all children safe.
Mr. Speaker, Dafne Henriquez is a great example of what happens when we invest and encourage young women to pursue STEM careers.
Dafne was born in Mexico and is a proud graduate of Triton College and the University of Illinois Chicago, where she received a bachelor of science in civil engineering.
While at Triton College, Dafne demonstrated strong leadership as president of the Triton College Student Association and was elected student trustee, serving alongside the Triton Board of Trustees from 2017 to 2018.
Dafne was interested in merging her passions for public service and infrastructure. After a decade of serving in State and local government, she now serves as the assistant village engineer for the village of Franklin Park. As a civil engineer, Dafne's work ensures that the roadways and other infrastructure projects built in Franklin Park keep communities safe and connected.
Dafne is committed to giving back to her community by leveraging her engineering expertise to develop infrastructure that enhances safety, efficiency, and quality of life. Beyond her professional career, she has also managed to mentor and build a strong coalition of young women in the northwest suburbs committed to improving their communities.
Mr. Speaker, we thank Dafne for the work that she does for our district and for her partnership.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize Ioana Fernandez, a relentless activist for kids, gun safety, inclusion, and public education.
Ioana immigrated to the U.S. from her native Romania as a young woman and settled in Chicago where she has developed a successful career in public relations and communications and where she is raising her family.
As a community activist, she actively participates in organizing and advocating for a future in which children don't have to fear for their lives when they go to school.
As a communicator, her work is inclusive and reflective of the diversity of our country.
As an advocate, Ioana is committed to uplifting working families and ensuring that elected officials are accountable to the people they represent.
Ioana is an organizer and a changemaker. Ioana's impact can be felt across DuPage County.
Thanks to her efforts, more people are engaged, informed, and ready to stand up for what is right.
Mr. Speaker, she leads with her heart and never backs down, and we thank her for all the work that she does.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the SAVE Act because American elections should only be decided by American citizens. That is not controversial. It is common sense.
Think about it. Democrats have no problem requiring ID to board a plane, buy a six-pack, drive a car, or even adopt a pet. Just a few years ago, they demanded proof of vaccination just to eat at a restaurant or pick up food.
When it comes to the most sacred act in our Republic, voting, they fight tooth and nail against requiring proof of citizenship. Why? It is blatant hypocrisy, and the American people see right through it.
The SAVE Act ensures that only American citizens can register to vote and vote in Federal elections. It protects the integrity of our system and restores faith in democracy. In fact, in Iowa, every single time we have passed election integrity laws, the percentage of people voting has increased.
With President Trump back in the White House, it is time to secure our elections and put American citizens first. Let's pass the SAVE Act now.
Mr. Speaker, today I am happy to announce that I have officially joined the bipartisan Congressional Agricultural Trade Caucus.
The State of Iowa leads the Nation in corn, pork, and soybean production. Expanding access to international markets is essential for our rural communities to succeed.
In the past, bad trade deals and overregulations from Washington have held our producers back. By joining the Agricultural Trade Caucus, alongside Representatives Adrian Smith, Jim Costa, Dusty Johnson, and
Jimmy Panetta, I will continue to fight to remove unfair trade barriers, open new markets for Iowa products, and promote policies that keep our local family farms strong and competitive.
Yesterday, when Secretary Rollins was in our State of Iowa, she remarked upon our productive farmers and ranchers and added she will be going on six trade trips internationally over the next 6 months.
For Iowans, agriculture isn't just a way of life. It is the backbone of our economy, and I am deeply committed to supporting Iowa's hardworking farmers and producers.
Mr. Speaker, the legal community has a longstanding tradition of representing historically underrepresented communities in important constitutional and historic landmark cases. Right now, the President and his cronies are shaking down the legal world in an unprecedented manner. These law firms have provided services to our underrepresented communities in a pro bono manner for decades.
In the past few weeks, the President has targeted law firms that he has deemed a threat against his goals to impose an illegal agenda. Through his executive orders, he has threatened the revocation of government security clearances and prohibitions on entering Federal buildings to these law firms.
Two of the law firms--Skadden; and Paul, Weiss--immediately settled to avoid sanctions and committed a collective $140 million in pro bono work to support the Trump administration's agenda.
Other targeted law firms--WilmerHale; Jenner & Block; and Perkins Coie--continue to challenge these orders in court. These law firms have been responsible for providing free pro bono work in support of disenfranchised communities for decades.
Mr. Speaker, Trump is doing this to stop them from successfully arguing against his executive orders and the harms and effects they may have on America.
In addition, many of our colleagues across the aisle have introduced at least seven bills to impeach Federal judges who have ruled against the Trump agenda.
They attempt to cripple our judicial branch of government which guaranties a delicate balance in our democracy and in our Republic. Many of these judges have been instrumental in pausing Trump's attack on birthright citizenship, and preventing ICE from going into sensitive locations such as churches, synagogues, funeral homes, schools, and emergency rooms.
This is what they are trying to do. They are trying to impose this very aggressive agenda against protections from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and, of course, they are attempting to dismantle the one system that has given us all the ability to rise together, the public education system.
House Republicans are carrying out Trump's attack by insisting that we take up legislation that would severely limit the judicial system's ability to
Mr. Speaker, there has been a longstanding tradition of unrepresented communities resorting to the judicial system when all else has failed. When all else has failed, communities go to the court to get relief. When it has been extremely hard to fight against larger, richer, and more powerful entities and to hold them accountable, communities go to the courts.
Rulings like Brown v. Board of Education, Obergefell v. Hodges, and Roe v. Wade have been instrumental in ensuring that all communities have equality and protection under the law.
Mr. Speaker, these are dangerous times. The chapters of history have told us time and time again that when fascism sticks its ugly head out the window, it is the courts that they go after so that it will prevent common folks from entering that institution and getting relief and justice.
We must fight to stop the administration's attack. To not do so would mean to damage the balance of power and to permanently fracture our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize April as National Volunteer Month.
Volunteering is more than an act of service. It is a testament to the power of community, kindness, and shared responsibility. Across our Nation, volunteers serve in countless ways: mentoring young people, supporting food banks, rebuilding homes after natural disasters, and lending a hand to those in need.
Their work is not just about addressing immediate challenges but about creating lasting change and hope.
As co-chair of the Congressional Service Organization Caucus, it is a privilege to celebrate National Volunteer Month, recognizing and honoring the millions of individuals who dedicate their time and talents to making our communities stronger, more resilient, and more compassionate.
When we give our time and our efforts to others, we foster a sense of unity and purpose. We bridge divides, strengthen neighborhoods, and inspire future generations to embrace the spirit of service.
From local charities to national organizations, volunteers are the heartbeat of our communities, demonstrating that even small acts of kindness can have a profound impact, making a lasting difference in the world. Throughout my district, there are many great volunteers.
From Penn State THON raising a record-breaking $17 million this year alone to aid families affected by childhood cancer to the Wellsboro Rotary Club, which just celebrated its centennial year of service, our communities are filled with neighbors helping neighbors.
These few examples remind us that acts of service have a profound impact, strengthening the fabric of our society and inspiring others to step forward.
Volunteering doesn't just help those whom we serve, it enriches our own lives. Studies show that service fosters personal growth, reduces stress, and even enhances our overall well-being. Beyond the data, we know firsthand that giving back fills our hearts with meaning and our communities with hope.
Mr. Speaker, as we observe National Volunteer Month, I encourage each of us to find new ways to give back.
Whether through a local nonprofit, a school, a faith-based group, or a simple act of kindness in our daily lives, we all have something valuable to contribute. Let us celebrate those who give their time and let us recommit to the values of service and generosity.
Together, through volunteering, we can build a better, stronger, and more connected world.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share the story of Victoria Rosas, a DACA recipient in my home county, Orange County. Victoria was raised in Fullerton, California, and thanks to her DACA status, she was able to pursue her passion for healthcare and helping others.
Today, Victoria is a nurse, and in her spare time, she has written a book and founded a non-profit group called Empower Moms California.
Victoria's journey is an example of the important contributions DACA recipients make to this great country and why we need to protect them from deportation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Carlo Garcia, a DACA recipient in our community and to tell you little bit of his great story.
Carlo was brought to the United States as a child. In his early life, even then he knew he would have to fight and work hard to achieve the American Dream. He worked as a janitor to help to support his mother and his young siblings while he continued to work to make sure he pursued the American Dream.
Carlo is a first-generation college graduate and has begun his career as a financial auditor, and recently he earned his CPA license just this past November. Now he is even closer than ever to achieving the American Dream.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Dr. Gloria Itzel Montiel, a DACA recipient, for her achievements and contributions to our great country.
Dr. Montiel received her DACA status after arriving in the United States at the age of 8 years old. She excelled academically. She then studied at Harvard University and then earned her Ph.D. from the Claremont Graduate University.
Dr. Montiel has dedicated her professional career to public health and education programming. Today, Dr. Montiel is a faculty fellow at Claremont Graduate University.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Montiel for her dedication to our community.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Orange County's grandmother, Cristina Prada, who is 94 years old.
Cristina's story is a very familiar story to us in Orange County. She came from Colombia in 1973 and worked at two or three jobs at the same time to make ends meet. She worked as a housekeeper at a nearby resort and cleaned houses for wealthy movie stars.
Cristina began to build her American Dream and watched her family grow even as she battled cancer numerous times in her life. At 94 years old, she has beaten the odds and has proven the doctors wrong. She continues to lead.
Cristina just celebrated her 94th birthday in the United States, and her story is a story of the American Dream. We are blessed to have her as part of our community.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Cristina for the way in which she inspires us.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an exceptional public servant, David Camhi, whose unwavering dedication to law enforcement and public safety has made an everlasting impact on his community.
Throughout his distinguished career, Mr. Camhi has exemplified the highest standards of service, of leadership, and of integrity.
For over 15 years, Mr. Camhi has served with distinction in the New York Police Department. His leadership, his commitment, and his generosity have been nothing short of extraordinary. He has led complex criminal investigations and tactical operations with unparalleled precision and excellence. His expertise spans critical areas such as counter-terrorism, crisis management, and investigations, ensuring the safety of New York City and its residents, this, in spite of the political winds in New York which have favored the criminal instead of favoring the victim.
From his roles as special operations sergeant and platoon commander to integrity control officer, Mr. Camhi has continuously demonstrated the core
In every position that he has held, he has embodied the values of public service and law enforcement with passion, professionalism, and courage.
Before his career in law enforcement, Mr. Camhi began his public service journey as a chief of staff for the New York State Assembly. In that capacity, he gained invaluable experience in legislative affairs and policy development, providing him with a unique perspective on bridging the gap between law enforcement operations and public policy. This foundation has allowed him to create a more comprehensive approach to community safety and to fostering collaboration among Federal, State, and local agencies.
Currently, as the commanding officer of the New York Police Department's Detective Bureau Tactical Training Unit, Mr. Camhi plays a vital role in preparing law enforcement officers for the challenges they face. Under his leadership, the unit provides essential tactical investigative training to detective bureau personnel, to special operations units, to military units, and to law enforcement officers at every level, Federal, State, and local.
Beyond his operational leadership, Mr. Camhi has proven to be a respected mentor and instructor, shaping the next generation of law enforcement professionals. His commitment to training ensures that officers are not only ready for the dangers they face but are also guided by the highest ethical standards as they serve their communities.
Through all his professional accomplishments, Mr. Camhi holds one thing above all: his family. He remains a devoted son, a devoted husband, and a devoted father, which is a testament to the values that guide his work and his life. Despite the demands of his career, he was always present, especially for his son, Sam, making sure that he always had his dad at every important moment. His dedication was not just to his job, but to his family.
I would also add that David's father was in law enforcement for a number of years, and when 9/11 occurred, guess who was first to volunteer his time to risk his health to go help clean up the damages of 9/11?
On behalf of the American people, I extend my deepest appreciation for his tireless efforts and exemplary service. May his leadership and dedication continue to inspire others for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against the administration's immigration enforcement policies.
For months the President and House Republicans have said that they are only targeting violent criminals.
Why is it, then, that last week ICE attempted to deport a constituent of mine who had been granted legal protections against removal under the Convention Against Torture?
This woman, the victim of unspeakable crimes in her home country, came here to the United States for her safety which is now being undermined by this administration.
Mr. Speaker, imagine being a United States citizen and the horror you would feel when your family member, again, someone who had been granted legal protection, is taken in the middle of the night and driven to Mexico, a country to which she has no ties.
How is this making our country safer?
How is this upholding the ideals of our Nation?
Mr. Speaker, when this administration talks about mass deportations, this is what they mean: taking people in the middle of the night who have a right to be here and trying to remove them to foreign countries.
My office is doing everything we can to help this woman and her family, but it begs the question: If this is how the administration treats someone with an attorney and the support of a Member of Congress, what does that mean for all those who don't have anyone fighting for them? Who is speaking up for them? If we say nothing, then what does that say about us?
This can't be what we stand for as a country. As a grandson of immigrants and the Representative of a proud immigrant community, it is something that I will always fight against.
Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks, the Trump administration and House Republicans have set their sights on the Federal judiciary, calling for unprecedented changes to our courts, attacking the character of dedicated Federal judges, and attempting to undermine the separation of powers that has upheld our democracy for centuries.
As an attorney by trade, I understand how concerning this is for our Nation's future. In this moment, we cannot be silent nor treat these attacks as normal.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to read excerpts from the American Bar Association's statement on the Republican assault on our judiciary into the record.
``There have now been statements by officials criticizing judges for not following the last people. Judges swear oaths to follow the law, not public opinion polling or political chatter or what someone contends is the will of the people. The Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in his `2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary': ` . . . Attempts to intimidate judges for their rulings in cases are inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.'
``We may disagree with interpretation of case law, but it is unacceptable to personally target judges just because we disagree with their ruling. We cannot have a judicial system where the government seeks to remove judges simply because they do not rule as the government desires. Considering the increasing physical threats to judges, these are clearly efforts to intimidate judges and our courts.''
``We reject efforts to undermine the courts and the profession. We will not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not. Words and actions matter. And the intimidating words and actions we have heard must end.''
``Consistent with the Chief Justice's report, these efforts cannot be sanctioned or normalized. There are clear choices facing our profession. We can choose to remain silent and allow these acts to continue or we can stand for the rule of law and values we hold dear. We call upon the entire profession, including lawyers who serve in elected positions, to speak out against intimidation. We acknowledge that there are risks to standing up and addressing these important issues. But if the ABA and lawyers do not speak, who will speak for the organized bar? Who will speak for the judiciary? Who will protect our system of justice? If we don't speak now, when will we speak?
``The American Bar Association has chosen to stand and speak. Now is the time for all of us to speak with one voice. We invite you to stand with us.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mary Gislason on 43 years of service to the people of Lyon County.
As a dispatcher for the sheriff's office, Mary provided crucial support, connecting those in need with emergency responders. Mary's colleagues praised her ability to remain calm despite the severity and stress of the job.
After 43 years of serving the people, some of them on the worst day of their lives, and being a lifeline to those in the field, I congratulate Mary on a well-deserved retirement. I wish her the best as she begins the next chapter of her life.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mr. Dave Preisler on receiving the Minnesota Pork Board's Distinguished Service Award.
From a childhood in 4-H and FFA to a 28-year career in the pork industry, Dave has dedicated his life to Minnesota agriculture. His expertise, compassion, and ability to lead in times of crisis have allowed him to leave a lasting impact on the industry and those who rely on it.
I congratulate Dave on this tremendous honor. We are all grateful so much for his service.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to ask a question that millions of Americans across this country are asking right now. That question is, ``What is Elon Musk doing with our data?'' because I think that none of us can figure that out.
For the last several months, we have watched as Elon Musk, DOGE, and his team of hackers have infiltrated agency after agency and database after database, downloading, accessing, and applying artificial intelligence systems to those data. Yet, when we have tried to bring Mr. Elon Musk in front of the Oversight Committee, or any committee of this body, the GOP has consistently blocked us day after day.
Mr. Musk claims to have maximum transparency, yet all he has done has created a B grade Twitter in which he is posting Twitter posts claiming that he is cutting government spending. Meanwhile, he is dropping millions of dollars in Wisconsin today, trying to buy a judicial race.
Republicans in this body are readying legislation this week to try to block the judiciary from holding and reining in Donald Trump and Elon Musk from data mining, firing Federal employees, freezing Federal funds, and dismantling Federal agencies. It raises the question: What are they doing inside our Federal agencies?
That is why, today, I have introduced legislation and a resolution to get to the bottom of what Elon Musk and DOGE are doing with our data and how they are using artificial intelligence.
Last week, Elon Musk did an interview with his DOGE hackers on FOX News, yet he still will not come in front of this body under oath and testify. During that interview, he claimed, as he has many times, that what he is using this data for is to make the government more efficient. Yet, over the course of the last several months, not only has he not made it more efficient, but he has mired the Federal Government in constant litigation and constant dismantling, disruption, and chaos of our agencies.
Now, he is telling us that he is going to leave the Federal Government in just a few weeks to expand his data and AI operations, as he announced last week, with his own AI company, of which a number of the executives are actively operating inside the Federal Government with DOGE right now.
It raises a lot of questions, doesn't it? That is why every single day, my constituents and Americans across this country are asking us: What are they doing with our data? Why are they inside these systems? Why are they downloading Treasury payment data? Why are they downloading IRS data? Why are they downloading our Social Security data? What are they going to do with it?
That is why this resolution will demand answers. This resolution, which has been introduced in the Oversight Committee, will demand that they produce documentation, names, datasets, and information about what they are doing. This is crucial to understanding not only how they are utilizing our private and confidential data as Americans but also the ways in which they are hacking those systems and illicitly using that data for their own policy and political ends and the way in which they are threatening our national security.
What they are doing is not legal. They cannot do this. We know that, but without the proper oversight that our Republican colleagues across the aisle are refusing to provide, we must use every tool that we have at our disposal.
That is why this resolution of inquiry is necessary to demand an investigation into what DOGE and Elon Musk are doing with our data, how it is impacting American privacy, and how it is impacting our national security. We will not back down until we get those answers.
Mr. Speaker, I humbly say to the Members of this House: We demand answers, and we demand answers now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support two critical pieces of legislation on the floor this week: first, the SAVE Act and, second, the No Rogue Rulings Act. Both are essential to the very fabric of this American Republic.
Over the last 4 years, President Biden created a crisis at our southern border, presiding over an invasion of illegal immigrants from all across the world, including adversarial nations. Against the best interests of the American people and our national security, my colleagues across the aisle would like to allow these individuals, who are in our country illegally, to vote in our elections.
We have seen instances of illegal aliens being issued Social Security numbers by the Biden administration and voting in the last election. In fact, in my home State, a study found that roughly 1,400 individuals who had questionable immigration status and were likely illegals were registered to vote in my own State.
My colleagues will be dishonest with you and say that did not happen. I will tell you this: We need to open our eyes to the reality of this border invasion. The reality is, right now, we have a system where folks who are here illegally can vote. That is simply wrong.
That is why we need to pass, this week, the SAVE Act. It is a commonsense measure that will ensure that States are required to verify citizenship when folks register to vote in a Federal election. This is the bare minimum to secure our elections and protect them from foreign influence.
Again, you will hear dishonest statements from opponents of this bill, like married women who have changed their names won't be able to vote. That is simply not true.
When someone gets married, look at their driver's license. Did the driver's license number change? Did a passport number change? No, that simply isn't accurate. Additionally, this bill allows up to six different forms of identification to verify citizenship.
In North Carolina, we have voter ID where folks show up to vote. Folks may have gotten married in between when they registered to vote and when they go to vote, and nobody is being turned away. Again, this is just more misinformation from the left.
One other thing the SAVE Act does is it requires States to clean up their voter rolls to remove noncitizens. Again, this is pretty straightforward, commonsense stuff.
Governor Greg Abbott in Texas, in fact, removed thousands of noncitizens from their voter rolls, and every State should be doing this.
At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, only American citizens should vote in American elections. If we don't pass the SAVE Act, we are signaling to the world that American elections are open to fraud and foreign interference. It is, in fact, a betrayal to every citizen who plays by the rules, pays their taxes, and deserves a voice in their government.
Election integrity starts with the passing of the SAVE Act.
Another bill this week that I mentioned earlier, a great bill that I am supporting, is the No Rogue Rulings Act, which will put an end to the overreach of district court judges in issuing nationwide injunctions.
As an attorney, I am just shocked by the blatant abuse of power that some of these radical activist judges are taking to block the lawful exercise of executive power.
President Trump was overwhelmingly and duly elected by the American people to put our country back on the right track. In just the first few months of his term, President Trump has faced more than 16 nationwide injunctions. That is more than Biden,
It is clear that these judges, time and time again, have encroached on the statutory authority of the President. Americans are outraged that D.C. District Court Judge James Boasberg told the Trump administration to turn a plane around that was full of heinous criminals, dangerous gang members who were in the U.S. illegally, and bring them back to American soil.
Judges should not have the power to set nationwide policy and rip President Trump's constitutional powers away from him. Article II, Sections 1 and 3, of the Constitution vest the executive power in the President and charge the President with faithfully executing the laws of the United States. However, activist judges want to replace the will of the voters with their personal politics.
I say to my friends that that is not how our system is supposed to work, and it undermines our democratic process. What we are seeing, in fact, is judicial tyranny.
The No Rogue Rulings Act restores balance. It ensures that legal challenges are resolved properly and not through backdoor activism and overreaching judicial actions.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of unelected judges wielding unchecked power. Let's pass the No Rogue Rulings Act and restore the integrity of our judicial system.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XV, I rise to provide notice of my intent to offer a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of House Resolution 164.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Did the gentlewoman sign the petition?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(c) of rule XV, a motion to discharge is privileged only at a time designated by the Speaker within 2 legislative days after the intent to offer such motion is offered.
The Chair will entertain the gentlewoman's motion at that time.
Mr. Speaker, the No Rogue Rulings Act is about stopping unelected judges from blocking a President's entire agenda with a single ruling.
This bill, introduced by my colleague from California, Representative Darrell Issa, puts an end to nationwide injunctions that overstep judicial authority.
Judges were never meant to act as a veto in the executive branch. When a district judge issues a nationwide injunction, they override the will of the voters by halting policies that one judge happens to disagree with politically.
This is about restoring balance. The Constitution sets clear roles for each separate branch of government.
The Issa bill ensures judges can rule on the cases before them, nothing more. Without this fix, activist judges will keep blocking policies on national security, the economy, and regulatory reform.
Passing the No Rogue Rulings Act means the judiciary won't be used as a political weapon to stall a duly elected President's agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark the beginning of the most solemn month of the year for Vietnamese Americans and diaspora. We refer to this month as Black April, or Thang Tu Den, because so many of us lost our homes, our livelihoods, and our country.
My own parents escaped brutal oppression at the hands of the Vietnamese Communist Government and came to this country seeking the freedom and democracy that had been ripped away from them in the country of their birth.
This year, we recognize the 50th anniversary of the Fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975. In the years since, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese Americans have built vibrant communities in the United States that have enriched our Nation and strengthened our communities.
By recognizing Black April, we honor those who sacrificed their lives for freedom, including members of the South Vietnamese military who fought alongside American allied forces. We also honor the immense hardships endured by the refugees as they embarked on the perilous journey to seek refuge and rebuild their lives.
I am so proud to be the first Vietnamese American to represent Orange County's Little Saigon community in Congress. Home to the largest Vietnamese diaspora in the world, Little Saigon is a beacon of hope and testament to the resiliency of our community.
I am proud to tell the story of our community on the floor of the United States House of Representatives to ensure that no communist regime can rewrite our history.
As we mark this solemn milestone, let us reaffirm our commitment to freedom and human rights and honor the indomitable spirit of the Vietnamese diaspora.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 60th anniversary of the Armstrong County Community Action Partnership.
For six decades, ACCAP has been a cornerstone of our community, dedicated to empowering individuals and families, promoting self- sufficiency, and improving the quality of life for so many.
Since its founding, ACCAP has provided essential services, ranging from housing assistance and food programs to transportation and early childhood literacy initiatives, such as Dolly Parton's Imagination Library. These programs create pathways to brighter, more stable futures.
This anniversary is not just a reflection on the past but a celebration of what is to come.
As part of this milestone, ACCAP is launching a monthlong celebration, including the placement of donation boxes throughout Armstrong County. This is a wonderful opportunity for all of us to give back and to ensure that ACCAP's vital work continues for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the Armstrong County Community Action Partnership for their unwavering commitment to our community and wish them many more years of service, support, and success.
Mr. Speaker, this week, we celebrate Eid al-Fitr, the end of the holy month of Ramadan.
As we finish this month of fasting, I want to recognize the beautiful Muslim community in Michigan's 12th Congressional District and around the world. Eid Mubarak.
This Ramadan has been a time of deep spiritual reflection and an opportunity to be in community with each other, but it also has been a painful time for so many Muslim families around the world.
I remind my colleagues that many of the Muslim families you represent are thinking of the Palestinians in Gaza who continue to be starved and ethnically cleansed. On the day of Eid, when children were celebrating in their Sunday best, as many call it, they were killed. They were killed as they were celebrating Eid.
As we gather to celebrate Eid, we have to also recognize and hold in our hearts all those facing violence and oppression around the world.
May this Eid bring peace, justice, and freedom for all.
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that, last week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that only American citizens vote in Federal elections with ballots counted on election day.
This week, House Republicans will vote on the SAVE Act introduced by Congressman Chip Roy. This bill requires proof of citizenship for registration and removing noncitizens from the voter rolls.
Under the leadership of President Trump, House Republicans can restore faith in elections. It is crucial for democracy that Americans trust the results.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Open borders for dictators put all Americans at risk of more 9/11 attacks imminent, as warned by the FBI. Trump is reinstituting existing laws to protect American families with peace through strength.
By signing the National Security Memorandum, President Trump is reaffirming his maximum pressure campaign against the Iranian regime. It is existential for Israel and America that Iran never have a nuclear bomb, as supported by war criminal Putin.
Mr. Speaker, in 99 percent of counties in the United States, SNAP benefits don't cover the cost of a nutritious meal.
The good news is that there are exciting partnerships happening that show us it is possible to improve access to healthier foods.
In New York City, local nonprofits, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the online grocery platform Mercato have partnered to help thousands of low-income New Yorkers with diet-driven chronic diseases purchase more nutritious food. The United Way of New York City is anchoring one produce prescription project, Connect2Food, that provides hungry people with $80 per month to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables.
This innovative work is teaching us that increased investments make it a little bit easier for families in need to make healthier choices, while also supporting local jobs and agriculture.
Let's improve SNAP benefits, support public-private partnerships to make healthier choices possible, build a healthier and more resilient Nation, and finally end hunger now.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the commissioning of the U.S. Navy's state-of-the-art nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Iowa, and the brave men and women who will serve aboard her.
This vessel represents not only the strength and innovation of our naval warfighters but also the heart and tenacity of Iowans.
Within the USS Iowa, you will find unique nods to our great State, highlighting Iowa's agriculture, leadership in education, and contributions to energy production.
The USS Iowa will enhance our force readiness around the world and serve as a powerful deterrent, compelling our adversaries to maybe think twice before attempting to destabilize the international order.
I thank the crew for their service and pray for their continued safety.
May she always navigate with Iowa grit and return home safely.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of an extraordinary member of my community, Mr. Gordan Willis Kirk, or Gordy as everyone knew him, passed away on March 2, 3 weeks shy of his 102nd birthday.
A proud member of St. Paul's Rondo neighborhood, Gordy was a World War II combat veteran who bravely served his country at a time when the ranks of our Armed Forces were segregated. His company in the Third Army, 4th Armored Division fought during the liberation of France, including the Battle of the Bulge, where he suffered from frostbite.
Gordy was an extraordinary advocate for his fellow veterans. In 1986, he was the first African-American VFW district officer in Minnesota. He was instrumental in establishing the Twin Star VFW Post 8854.
Gordy was a special person in my community, and I am so proud to have called him my friend. His legacy will continue to inspire me and others for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to read my extension of remarks.
Mr. Speaker, there is so much excitement in my home county, Greene County, North Carolina.
The Greene Central High School band received the highest marks at the North Carolina Bandmasters Association Music Performance Adjudication concert band festival. They earned a superior rating, which is the highest score. The band consists of 40 incredible students, led by an amazing band director, Mr. Andrew Howell.
Music education remains essential, not just in eastern North Carolina but across the Nation. I am so proud of the Greene Central High School band, and I thank everyone across America for joining in this exciting achievement. I look forward to hearing all the wonderful music they will make in their future.
Mr. Speaker, you do not need a traditional 4-year degree to become a millionaire. In Ohio's Seventh District, we have some of the best career centers in the Nation, placing students in high-paying jobs right out of high school.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Medina County Career Center in Medina, Ohio, right in our district. The center opened in 1974 as the Medina County Joint Vocational School before changing its name to what it is today. The career center is a partnership with six public school districts in northeast Ohio and offers advanced career and technical education for approximately 1,200 high school students and nearly 3,000 adult students.
Additionally, the center offers secondary career development resources and student internship opportunities, preparing students to enter or to reenter the workforce.
I commend the Medina County Career Center and express my gratitude for the center's role in producing future leaders from Ohio's Seventh Congressional District.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of all of the families who are being hurt by this administration's reckless trade wars.
Last week, I met with Minnesota families and childcare providers to talk about how expensive it is to raise a family and care for young children. I met Nana Renee. She is a mother and a grandmother from Brooklyn Park who loves her family more than anything in the world. She, like so many families, is struggling to make ends meet.
As a country, we should be doing everything we can to support our young families and make raising kids more affordable. These policies are doing the exact opposite.
With this administration's sweeping tariffs, families will be forced to pay even more for the products they need to care for their children such as high chairs, cribs, strollers, and car seats. Car seats are not an optional purchase. They are required by law.
That is why today my Democratic colleagues and I are calling on the administration to exempt essential childcare products from these tariffs. I challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to stand up for families and join us in this call. Families should not have to foot the bill for these reckless trade wars.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life of the man I knew as Raul, our dearest, fiercest, dedicated Chairman Grijalva. My heart is breaking over the loss of his voice in Congress.
The love he had for our planet was as deep as the Grand Canyon he helped protect. His commitment to those who needed it most was inexhaustible. He encouraged me to chair the Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs, and his commitment to Native Americans meant we passed dozens of bipartisan bills on this floor.
We legislated together, we protested together, and we laughed together. His spirit will continue to guide my work and that of environmentalists, activists, Latinos, Native Americans, and people who love this beautiful place we call home.
``May he rest in peace with the love of a grateful people.'' ``Que descanses en paz con el amor de un pueblo agradecido.''
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing thousands of 9/11 first responders and survivors who live in New York's Fourth Congressional District.
For years, they have fought to get access to the healthcare that they desperately need and unquestionably deserve. They have traveled to Washington countless times, even those that are sick and dying, to urge Congress to pass a permanent funding fix for the World Trade Center Health Program.
These heroes who saw us through one of the darkest days in our Nation's history have spent two decades begging Congress to act. No one in the 9/11 community should ever have to worry about accessing the healthcare that they require.
I was outraged to see this funding excluded from the yearlong spending bill that was just passed earlier this month. Our first responders and survivors can't wait for action.
I am proud to help lead the 9/11 Responder and Survivor Health Funding Correction Act, alongside a bipartisan group of my colleagues, to right this wrong.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation promised to never forget, but every delay in funding tells the 9/11 community something different. It is time to act.
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...
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, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule providing for consideration of four measures: S.J. Res. 18, disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Customer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''; S.J. Res. 28, disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications''; H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025; and H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.
House Resolution 282 provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28, both under closed rules, with 1 hour of general debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees and provides each one a motion to commit.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1526. This is the act relating to the U.S. District Court's issuing nationwide injunctions, and that is to be considered under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 22, the Safeguard America Voter Eligibility Act under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees and provides one motion to recommit.
Finally, the rule provides that House Resolution 23 and House Resolution 164 are laid on the table.
Mr. Speaker, this rule deals with several issues. The underlying legislation included is essential. One of the bills included in this rule is H.R. 1526 led by the Representative from California (Mr. Issa).
This bill limits the ability of U.S. District Court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. I would like to be clear. This bill does not prohibit nationwide injunctions, Mr. Speaker. It merely establishes a mechanism to issue nationwide injunctions under appropriate circumstances.
Under the bill, if two separate States from two separate U.S. judicial circuits are reviewing the same case, a panel of three randomly chosen judges would be convened to determine whether issuing a nationwide injunction is appropriate action. These injunctions would then have the ability to be appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court.
I believe that no one district court judge in the United States anywhere, whether it be the Western District of Virginia, the Northern District of West Virginia, one of the districts in California, or anywhere else in the country, should have the ability to make nationwide decisions as a district court judge.
This bill would prevent forum shopping and somewhat restore checks and balances to our judicial system in the country by providing that we have a randomly selected three-judge panel.
Also included in this rule is H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or the SAVE Act, championed by the Representative from Texas (Mr. Roy). The bill prohibits noncitizens from voting. Let me get that through. There has been some confusion. It prohibits noncitizens from voting.
It does so by requiring States to obtain proof of citizenship when registering individuals to vote in Federal elections. Even though most States prohibit noncitizens from voting in their elections, these noncitizens are still registered to vote in some States and in some cities around the country.
Also noncitizens sometimes get registered by mistake. I am not saying this happens by design, but it happens by mistake, and it largely happens due to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 known as the Motor Voter Act. This requires every person applying for a driver's license with their State's Department of Motor Vehicles to receive a voter registration application. Various States and their Departments of Motor Vehicles don't generally check citizenship status before giving out the voter registration application. Some do, and hopefully this legislation will encourage more to do so.
During the last election cycle, we even saw that some Federal agencies were instructed to hand out registration forms without the ability to discern whether the person receiving the form is a citizen or not. So the noncitizen shows up at a government office, and they are given a form. They fill it out. I am not saying they are doing it for ill purposes, Mr. Speaker, but they fill it out. They are given the form, and then they fill it out. As a result, they end up showing up on some voter rolls, and there is the potential that they may vote improperly in one of our Federal elections.
Last Congress, then-West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner testified before a House Administration
This bill attempts to fix the various loopholes and ensure that only eligible United States citizens are voting in our country's Federal elections. Now, Mr. Speaker, I keep saying Federal elections. If a local government wants to have folks who are not citizens voting, then that is their right. It is the same thing with the various States. It can happen out there if that is what they want, but in the Federal elections, that is where Congress gets into the act.
Also, this rule includes two resolutions of disapproval that both passed the Senate. S.J. Res. 18 nullifies the rule finalized by the Biden administration in December of 2024, that would be roughly 4 months ago, that attempts to cap overdraft fees.
Overdraft fees are a necessary evil that I believe in most cases actually help the consumer. Now, I understand nobody wants to pay it, but transparency is certainly helpful for consumers on an issue like this, and I am not sure these caps are the way to go.
Traditionally, things like overdraft fees are regulated by State regulators. It is unclear whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, can do this rulemaking under its cited authority in the Truth in Lending Act.
I have serious concerns that if this rule goes into effect that it can potentially bring about a criminal charge and even perhaps criminal punishment. I don't think the CFPB looked at all the criminal laws of the States, but having practiced for many years in the criminal courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia and having discussed it with the patrons of the bill, the same is fairly much true in the State of Kentucky.
Mr. Speaker, if you use a draft or a check, and I know not a lot of people do that, but in the rural area I represent, they are still used frequently particularly by my senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, if you use a draft or a check to pay a merchant for something and that check comes back from the bank marked insufficient funds, then under Virginia law, you have created a presumption that the individual is attempting to defraud the merchant. That entitles, when the check is returned, the merchant to charge up to $50 for a returned check fee and to seek criminal penalties. If the check is not made good then they can seek criminal penalties which carry with it up to 12 months in jail for most checks and up to a $2,500 fine. That is certainly a whole lot more than the average fee for insufficient funds currently that are being charged by financial institutions, banks, and credit unions of about $35.
Further, Mr. Speaker, if a criminal charge is brought, then you may have the cost of an attorney, and you have to spend a day in court trying to work it out. If you pay it off after the charge is brought but before going to court, then you still have to pay all of the court costs associated with the charge being brought.
This is a significant problem that I don't think CFPB thought about when they were instituting this rule because if the banks and credit unions only allow a $5 fee, many of them will discontinue the use of this service. They won't allow you to sign up for it any longer, Mr. Speaker, and you could face potential criminal penalties.
Mr. Speaker, you can have the overdraft protection fee and pay about $35 or a $50 merchant fee and potential criminal charges. I think this is one that really does need to go away. I am surprised that my Democratic colleagues aren't supporting this, but they have other reasons.
S.J. Res. 28 nullifies another Biden administration rule that was finalized in December of 2024 as well that would create burdensome regulatory requirements for certain non-bank digital payments and digital wallet companies. This rule expands CFPB's regulatory power and was another attempt by the Biden administration to rush a rule out of the door for the CFPB after President Trump had been elected but before the new administration had the ability to have any input or consultation on how to carry out a public rulemaking process.
I am concerned this will cut down on people's use of innovative money transfer apps.
All four of these legislative items are steps in the right direction to cut down on red tape, ensure fair elections, and restore the system of checks and balances in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the rule to allow the House to debate the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is an awful lot of stuff in this rule before us. However, let's be clear about one thing that is happening with this rule today, and that is Republican leadership is trying to overturn the democratic process of majority rule.
Mr. Speaker, 218 Members of this House, a majority of us, signed a petition from Congresswoman Luna, who is a Republican, allowing new moms and dads to vote remotely in Congress. When 218 of us sign a petition, the House rules say it can be brought up for a vote. However, a backdoor provision slipped into this rule is being used to shut down that process. This is an unprecedented step. Literally, it has never been done before in the history of the House--never.
Mr. Speaker, if you signed Representative Luna's discharge petition, if you agree it deserves a vote, and if you agree that a majority of the House should have the ability to bring up legislation through the discharge process, then you have to vote ``no'' on this rule. It is that simple.
Let's go back to the drawing board. Drop this provision.
By the way, this isn't remote voting for everyone. It is very simply about giving new parents the option to vote remotely if they so choose. That is it. That is what the Republican leadership is killing.
When we get to the actual bills Republicans are advancing here, Mr. Speaker, who wrote these Republican bills? A Wall Street lobbyist?
One of them is literally about letting big banks raise their fees. Who the hell asked for that, the CEO of Goldman Sachs?
People are getting screwed by big banks, by the Bank of America, by Morgan Stanley, and by Wells Fargo. This is about whose side you are on.
At least Republicans are up front about it. They want to help Wall Street. Democrats fought to make sure that overdraft fees are capped at $5, and these guys come down here with a straight face telling America what? That letting banks raise fees is a good thing.
I mean, Republican math is that higher fees are good for you, Mr. Speaker. Really? Somehow we all should want to pay more fees to big banks? Is this a joke? Is this a bad joke?
This next measure that they have in this rule lets Big Tech off the hook when people get ripped off. Did Elon Musk write this one?
These guys are coming down here with a straight face and telling us that Big Tech needs less regulation and that they need less oversight. Is this an April Fools' Day joke?
Here is the contrast: Democrats actually fought to make sure Big Tech is held accountable when things go wrong on Apple Pay, Cash App, or Zelle and when people are hacked, scammed, or defrauded.
What do Republicans want to do? They want to let Big Tech off the hook. If you lose money, too bad, Mr. Speaker. If your data gets sold, too bad. Whose side are Republicans on?
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is not yours.
Maybe for April Fools' Day they could really change things up and actually stand up for working people. There is a crazy idea.
We have another bill to block nationwide injunctions when the government breaks the law. Here is a better idea: Why don't Republicans call up Donald Trump and tell him to stop breaking the law?
What an idea. Of course, it is a day that ends in Y, so Republicans are bringing to the floor a bill to take away peoples' voting rights.
Get this, Mr. Speaker, if you are a woman who changed her name after marriage, you will now need a certified birth certificate. However, if your
Only Republicans would think voter disenfranchisement is somehow a good idea. This is all about making it more difficult for American citizens to vote. That is the real fraud. Donald Trump actually had a commission on voter fraud, and he disbanded it because he couldn't find any.
Republicans are defrauding American voters by making it more difficult to register. This stuff is right out of the authoritarian playbook straight from China, Russia, or Iran.
Republicans are acting like they are above the law. They are putting the rich and powerful first, undermining an independent judiciary, and undermining the right to vote. This is the road to authoritarianism, Mr. Speaker. Republicans are putting us in the fast lane to a dictatorship, and you can be damn sure that I am not going to be silent and that people on this side are not going to be silent. I am going to fight against these bills. I am going to fight to protect and uphold our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues here, both Democrats and Republicans, to vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. As many of you might know, for over 2 years now I have been championing the cause to allow new female Members of Congress the right to vote. Some of the American people might be surprised that if you are a female Member and you have a child, that you can't vote. This means you can't execute your constitutional authority.
For almost 2 years now in this cause I have met with leadership. I have exhausted all tools in my legislative toolkit to be able to bring this to the floor. As I was met with much opposition, I finally used the last tool that I had at my disposal which was something known as a discharge petition where I collected 218 signatures and expanded the ability to vote while recovering from childbirth not just to mothers but also to young fathers in our governing body.
Now leadership, because of the fact they don't like the fact that I was successful at this, is trying to change the rules, but I want to talk about how fundamentally dangerous this rule change is.
As of right now, they slipped language into this rule, and I will get to what they attached the rule to in a second, that would permanently kill any ability for new Members of Congress to be able to bring this up and allow those Members who just had a child to be able to vote. That is dangerous because of the fact that, A, not only if I argue this from the Republican standpoint that we have a very slim majority, but also to think about the message that that sends, allowing female Members to be able to vote.
In addition to that, I would also like to add that for a while we have had the majority and we have had the ability to bring legislation to the floor on election integrity and also to call out rogue judges, and yet they chose at this point in time to tie this discharge petition killer to this rule that would also permanently paint me and the Members supporting it, and I would like to also share that I am one of the most conservative Members of this body, I would like to hold up my voting record to anyone else as not just being anti-election integrity but also enabling a position that I don't typically agree with.
That in itself, I would say, in this entire process has been the most disappointing especially from among my party. I would also ask my colleagues to remember that up until 1916, female representation was not a common thing in Washington, D.C.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to give this a fair shot. Vote ``no'' against the rule and allow this to come to the floor so that we can address it for the first time, I would say, in congressional history and do the right thing. If we don't do the right thing now, it will never be done.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I respect the gentlewoman from Florida for her courage and for standing up on behalf of doing the right thing. I wish more people in this Chamber would do that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Pettersen), who is the author of the parental proxy resolution that is trying to be killed by today's rule. She is a new mom herself.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this rule which restricts moms and dads from doing their jobs after welcoming a new child. Like so many of our colleagues, it is one of my greatest honors to be a mom. I have two little boys, a son named Davis who is 5, and my little guy here, Sam, who is now 9 weeks old.
It is also one of my greatest honors to have been elected by my constituents to represent them in Congress. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, after being a mom here and being only the 13th voting Member to have ever given birth while serving in Congress, I can tell you we have a long ways to go to make this place accessible for young families like mine.
When I was pregnant, I couldn't fly toward the end of my due date because it was unsafe for Sam, and I was unable to board a plane. I was unable to actually have my vote represented here and my constituents represented.
After giving birth, I was faced with an impossible decision. Sam was 4 weeks old. For all the parents here, we know that when we have newborns, that is when they are the most vulnerable in their lives. It is when they need 24/7 care, when taking them even to a grocery store is scary because you are worried about exposure to germs and them getting sick, let alone taking them to an airport, on a plane, and coming across the country to make sure that you are able to vote and represent your constituents.
I was terrified that no matter what choice I made, I would have deep regrets for the consequences. So, Sam and I made the trip out, and this is our third time now coming to the floor, for this vote.
I thank all the people who have stood by us. I thank Representative Luna for being such a champion on this issue.
While Sam is the best baby, I apologize for the noises here.
I thank Representative Luna for being such a champion on this issue, alongside the rest of my colleagues who have led this charge and supported us in our efforts to pass this resolution.
When I hear from Members about their stories, whether they are a mom or a dad doing this job, having a newborn who is in the NICU, and having to make the choice whether or not to leave their child or come here to vote, it is unfathomable that, in 2025, we have not modernized Congress to address these very unique challenges that Members face, these life events, where our voices should still be heard.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, thank you for signing our discharge petition. We are asking you to continue to stand with us because no mom or dad should be in the position that I was in and so many parents have found themselves in.
It is antiwoman. It is antifamily. We need to come together to make sure that we kill this rule and have the opportunity to pass this resolution to make sure that new parents have the ability to continue to represent their constituents.
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.
It also provides for the consideration of the SAVE Act, legislation that fixes a broken provision of law by closing the loopholes that allow noncitizen voter registration and to enhance election security, minimizes the risk of foreign interference in U.S. elections, and restores Americans' confidence in U.S. elections.
It also includes important legislation by Mr. Issa to provide for a commonsense approach in limiting the exponential spread of nationwide injunctions. These nationwide injunctions, when combined with forum shopping by activists, are circumventing the will of the public by turning courts into public policy determinants, completely upending our constitutional framework.
I would like to briefly echo my earlier remarks at the Rules Committee this morning.
I am proud to support the provision in the rule that safeguards this Chamber from a take-it-or-leave-it, nonamenable approach to authorize proxy voting.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, ``congress'' is defined as the act of ``coming together and meeting.'' I have never voted by proxy because I believe it undermines the fabric of that sacred act of convening.
I know there is a laptop class in America that seems to operate increasingly in a virtual space, but that is simply not a fact of life for most American workers, and I believe Congress should live by that standard.
Our Nation's construction workers can't build by proxy. Our Nation's police can't keep the streets safe by proxy. Teachers can't educate our students through the act of proxy. Doctors and nurses cannot treat the sick by proxy.
Let's not forget how dependent we were on service workers and delivery employees to get us the goods we needed during COVID. Where would we have been if they decided to ``proxy'' their responsibilities?
I understand that some of my colleagues are pinning their hopes on the fact that things will go according to plan, that proxy voting can be limited to select classes, and that those in authority can be trusted to enforce the rules. However, in the course of human events, things rarely ever go according to plan.
This isn't theoretical. The Democrats implemented proxy voting during COVID, and it was a disaster. We had one Member who was submitting his proxy letter so he could moonlight a second job.
We simply cannot throw this important decision to chance. It will take only slight reconfiguration of the deck chairs in this body to put Democrats back in charge and put us on a path to proxy voting without limitation.
Put simply, Members of Congress need to show up for work. I support this rule and urge my colleagues to support it on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
After listening to the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, my head is about to explode.
She talked about how disastrous it was when we had proxy voting during COVID. It was so disastrous that 162 Republicans actually voted by proxy.
She talked about how somehow it was unconstitutional, so unconstitutional that the current Speaker of the House, on multiple occasions, voted by proxy 39 different times.
She talks about people needing to show up to work. Well, people did show up to work and did participate in representing their constituents when we had proxy voting.
She doesn't seem to be that upset over the fact that Donald Trump conducts most of his business from the golf course in Mar-a-Lago. She doesn't seem to be very upset over the fact that the FBI Director, Kash Patel, is asking to work remotely from Las Vegas. She didn't seem that upset that there were people on the Rules Committee who used proxy voting to go to a CPAC convention to basically listen to political rhetoric from people on the extreme rightwing.
The bottom line is, Republicans love to talk about family values, but when given the chance to really support families, they turn their backs.
She talks about looking in Webster's dictionary, about the definition of ``congress.'' While she is at it, she should look up the definition of ``representation.'' There is nothing that says you shouldn't be able to represent your constituents because you just had a new baby.
The rule that we are considering right now is unprecedented because never in the history of the House has the Rules Committee tried to outright kill a discharge petition that was already signed by a majority of the House--never. This is precedent-setting.
Let me be clear: Discharge petitions are not a tool of the minority. That is true no matter how many times Republican leadership wants to say so.
In the past 30 years, before this month, a grand total of four discharge petitions have been sent by a majority of this House. Guess who introduced every single one of those four bills? Republican Members of a Republican majority. How did a majority of Republicans vote on those bills? They voted in support.
This isn't some Democratic tool that we use to make the other side take votes. This is a vital tool that has allowed Republicans with commonsense, bipartisan ideas to actually bring them forward against the opposition of their leadership.
By the way, even if you think this is a tool of the minority, once you set this precedent, that is it. Republicans are a few seats away from losing control of this Chamber. You might see this debate a lot differently in hindsight. If you want to protect your rights as Members of Congress, you should vote ``no'' here. You should especially vote ``no'' if you support the idea that new moms and dads should be allowed to vote remotely while taking care of a newborn.
Members worked across the aisle to draft a compromise version of remote voting for new parents. A bipartisan majority of this House signed a petition to bring this to the floor. Congresswoman Luna followed the rules, followed the rules that you set, the same rules that were in place when I was chair of this committee, the same basic rules that have been in place for a hundred years.
A majority of this Congress supports the Luna-Pettersen rule to allow new parents to vote remotely because it is common sense and because this is 2025, not 1925.
Members who stand with new parents and young families, Members who recognize we live in a modern world and don't show up to work with a horse and buggy, Members who believe in the democratic process, things like majority rule--what a radical idea--must defeat this antifamily, antidemocratic power grab of a resolution.
If you signed this discharge petition, you need to vote ``no'' on this rule. If you think it is important for individual Members to have any ability to move commonsense, bipartisan ideas forward, you need to vote ``no'' on this rule. A ``no'' vote is the only vote that lets that happen.
Congresswoman Luna convinced a majority in this House to support her idea. She deserves to get an up-or-down vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans are rigging the system to silence your vote and silence your power.
If you are a woman, a rural voter, an Active-Duty military member, or a Tribal member, the SAVE Act will cost you more time, more money, and maybe your right to vote, period.
Under the SAVE Act, if your birth certificate does not match your voter registration, you will have to pay to get a passport or jump through even more hoops to register to vote.
All of you married women out there, that is you.
The SAVE Act also requires you to show up in person to present your documents. Military members overseas can't do that, and rural voters may have to drive 2 hours if you are in Representative Ciscomani's district and maybe more in Republican rural districts. That is a lot of gas money and lots of work that you have lost.
Republicans rejected my amendment to fix those two problems, but they don't like an easy fix. No, everything
This rule also blocks the House from voting on Representative Luna's bipartisan discharge petition signed by a majority of the House, including Republicans, to allow new parents to vote by proxy.
Speaker Johnson voted by proxy 39 times, and he didn't have a newborn. Earlier this year, they let a Republican go on a Hollywood comedy show and vote by proxy, but they won't let a pregnant colleague who cannot safely travel vote by proxy. Republicans are undermining family values yet again.
I hope my Republican colleagues who signed the discharge petition continue to have the courage to vote against this rule. You should not be silenced.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I will say, the reason I raise that issue is because what we have in this rule is really just a different form of the classic motion to lay on the table or to postpone indefinitely.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that you have to go back to Jefferson's Manual and old practices to figure that out. Yet, that is, in essence, what this rule does in relationship to the resolutions that have been discussed being laid on the table and not being brought up.
Mr. Speaker, I will talk about proxies for a minute, if I might. I have always been opposed to proxy voting. I would say to my colleagues, both on the other side of the aisle and my side of the aisle, if I were to ever break that feeling that it is not the right way to run this body, this might be the one that would tempt me. Yet, we can't.
Even though we are looking now at a certain class that we are all sympathetic to, moms and babies and new dads, there are already discussions underway for expanding that. Now that this has started to be discussed, there are all kinds of discussions around Capitol Hill about other things that should be granted the ability to vote by proxy.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if Members agree with me that Representatives shouldn't vote by proxy, this is an appropriate technique under the rules of this House to allow us to, in essence, lay the issue of voting by proxy on the table.
I have heard people say: These folks followed the rules.
This is also a component of the rules, and oftentimes there is a clash of the rules.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to quit making it sound like it is some kind of a nefarious thing. I don't agree with voting by proxy. I didn't vote by proxy when it was allowed. I didn't vote for anybody else by proxy when it was allowed. I have always been opposed to it. I think it is bad for the Republic.
In the long term, individuals may have differences of opinion. Individuals may disagree. Individuals may have circumstances where they that cry out to us to say: Shouldn't we allow it in this case?
Yet, I think it is bad for the Republic to go down that path. Just because others have done it and they did it when it was legal or proper under the rules and because some have had inappropriate behavior and done it when it wasn't supposed to be done, it does not mean that we should change the ruling or the rules of this House to allow it.
I was sitting here thinking. We have all kinds of rules, rules of the road, et cetera. Just because not everybody stops at a stop sign or not everybody stops at a red light doesn't mean that we should suddenly change the law and say people don't have to stop. That is the circumstance that I think that we are in currently.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I don't blame the Speaker for not being able to answer the question of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith). I have been on the Rules Committee for a long time, and I, quite frankly, don't know what the hell he is talking about.
Mr. Speaker, none of us are saying that the rules can't be changed here. We are just saying they shouldn't be. In the House of Representatives, I don't know, but I thought the majority rules. I thought that was kind of an important standard that we all followed around here, but apparently not.
Apparently, according to my Republican colleagues who are now in charge, it is now the minority that should rule, that a minority of opinion who doesn't want to see things come to the floor can just block it and not even give people an opportunity to vote up or down.
I think this is a very dangerous precedent, and I think the majority is going to regret going down this road. Again, I hope that there are courageous people on the Republican side who will stand with Representative Luna and all of us and vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gomez).
Mr. Speaker, I think Speaker Johnson doesn't get it.
First, what the Speaker is trying to do regarding this rule is to kill a process that has been in place for a very, very long time and really undermine the majority will of this body. The American people want us to work together. When we finally do work in a bipartisan way, the Speaker tries to use a procedural move to undo that.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the Dads Caucus in support of Representative Luna's and Representative Pettersen's proxy voting bill that will allow new parents to spend a limited time, 12 weeks, with a newborn child. That is all we are asking.
The reason is it is not just about those new parents, but it is also about making a Congress that is representative of the people in this country, men and women who are starting a family and who are taking care of a newborn child, those who are struggling to make ends meet, those who are struggling to figure out how to take care of this new person that is living among us and to make sure that they have a healthy start in life. That is what this is about.
Mr. Speaker, when we make this body more representative and make it easier for people to serve, all of a sudden, we will make decisions that are more representative of our country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for a rejection and a ``no'' vote on the rule because this is about a democracy that truly represents working men and women and their kids.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would note for the American people that the Republican majority is bringing before the body two important measures this week.
The first measure is to ensure the integrity of our elections, to ensure that only American citizens can vote in American elections, a fairly commonsense principle, which enjoys 80 percent-plus approval among the American people, that would ensure in a straightforward way that noncitizens may not vote in our elections. It is that simple.
The second measure we are bringing forward is a piece of legislation that we are actively debating right now in a committee that I am co- chairing, the Committee on the Judiciary, and I will go back to that committee forthwith, in which we are having witnesses before the Committee on the Judiciary discussing the extent to which we have judges that are taking unilateral action under what are called temporary restraining orders, or injunctions, to thwart the efforts of the administration's actions as a direct result of the election in November to carry out the agenda for which the President was elected.
Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan problem that has been something
We have had Democrats who have said that we should change it. We have had Republicans who have said that we should change it. We are trying to change it. We are trying to say that a judge can take action on the parties before them, but nothing more, and then have that go up through another procedure, and then allow an appellate panel or a three-judge panel or the Supreme Court to fast track it, so if they decide there should be an injunction, there can be.
Mr. Speaker, let me put it in plain speak for the American people. We are putting measures on the floor to ensure that only American citizens vote in American elections and to ensure that judges don't make the policy for America but the elected leaders do, whether it is the executive branch, President, or the Members of Congress, and that there be a process to ensure that the Constitution, the laws of the land, are being protected.
That is what the majority in this body is putting forward. We can listen all day long about what we are hearing today regarding proxy voting. The American people who I know and represent and talk to expect us to show up. Right now, across this country, Americans are showing up to work. They are going in, and they are doing their plumbing work. There are electricians showing up to work. There are builders who are standing out in the sun. They are picking crops. They are working hard.
They don't get to take a pass. They don't get to not show up. Yet, we were elected to represent the 750,000-odd Americans each. We were elected under the Constitution of the United States, and we are supposed to show up in Congress; that is what it means. We are supposed to be here. It is why the institution exists. It is why this floor exists.
Mr. Speaker, there have been countless reasons why there would be cause for us to want to allow Members to have some sort of flexibility, such as people who are sick, or our friend, Steve Scalise, who was shot. He was shot, and he didn't ask for any special dispensation. He fought cancer, is still fighting cancer, and as majority leader is standing here on this floor every day doing the job.
New dads. I am a dad. My daughter and my son ask me to show up to things. I missed my son's 4-H presentation last week. I missed my daughter's 4-H event this last week. I have missed countless family engagements.
My wife carries the burden of making sure that our family can function back home in Texas, but I signed up for the job. That is what I did. I signed up for the job.
When Members let this happen, it will not just happen for mothers or fathers. It will be for everybody, and then we will have proxy voting where you will have pressures brought to bear that will fundamentally change this institution.
No, we should not allow this to occur. No, we shouldn't have a discharge petition brought to the floor, which does violence to the Constitution, does violence to the body, and does it with no ability to amend it. The way the rule is drafted, there would be no amendments and no ability to debate it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for yielding additional time.
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing on the floor today is right and proper under our rules. It is to say that we should have a full-throated debate on something that would fundamentally change the people's House, nothing more, nothing less. We should do that.
This is something that has been debatable. It was debated by the Founders. It was debated by them and rejected. It was debated and rejected in the Articles of Confederation. It was debated and rejected in the Constitution. We are now staring at the result of having set aside tradition and precedent by embracing proxy voting during COVID. It is trying to be expanded beyond that. We should not do that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, responding to the gentleman who just spoke, just because the gentleman yells doesn't make his vote count more. It certainly doesn't make him right.
Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump literally works from a golf course, and my friends on the other side of the aisle don't say anything about it. Yet, God forbid a pregnant mother be able to have her baby in the safety of her home and in her community and she votes by proxy. Somehow, the Republic will fall? Give me a break.
What the hell is wrong with the majority? This is ridiculous. This is ridiculous. This is coming from a group of people over there, many of whom voted by proxy during COVID, some of them multiple times. I don't have any patience for this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Johnson).
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to the Republicans' voter suppression act. This bill is not about election integrity. This is not about ensuring that only citizens vote. This is about making it impossible for people and new voters to vote.
Mr. Speaker, this has played out in Texas and other jurisdictions across the country. Yet, in 2021, Texas has led the Nation in voter suppression, rejecting nearly 13 percent of mail-in ballots. Texas rejected nearly 13 percent of ballots cast by rightful citizens of this country, people who are being disfranchised for exercising their right to vote.
The Republicans are really using this patriotic chest-beating moment of voting in an attempt to make it difficult for people of color, for seniors, for veterans, for persons with disabilities to be able to go and cast their vote.
I filed three amendments to make this bill better that were all rejected by the Republicans, one of which would have made it possible to provide documentation of citizenship through online means, to register online. There are millions of people in this country who cannot physically get to a polling place. There are men and women in our service branches who are stationed abroad who cannot physically get back to their polling place in their jurisdiction to register to vote.
We are basically telling these citizens of this country that their votes don't count. We don't care if they can vote. We don't care how hard it is, and we are going to make it impossible for them to vote.
Republicans categorically rejected that amendment.
Mr. Speaker, what about the accountability for making sure that election officials don't screw up and tell a citizen of this country that they don't get to vote? Where is the right to cure? I filed an amendment that would have said that, if citizens were wrongfully denied the right to vote, they would have 24 hours to get a hearing to have a judge take a look at it to prove that the election clerk got it wrong and that they are an American citizen and deserve to be able to cast their ballot.
Republicans categorically rejected that. It is an atrocity on the American public, and it is an atrocity for citizens who are trying to duly cast their vote.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order Representative Dexter's amendment to the SAVE Act, which prevents the bill from taking effect within a State unless that State certifies that the implementation of the bill would not lead to disenfranchisement of eligible married women voters.
I ask for unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding and for his actions today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on one of my eight amendments to the SAVE Act, which will be offered as the previous question today.
Let me be clear: The SAVE Act is an antiwoman, voter suppression bill. Under the guise of election integrity, the SAVE Act would penalize millions of women just for taking their spouse's name, requiring them to present additional documentation that many women don't have or don't have the resources to obtain to exercise their constitutional right to vote.
My amendment would prevent this bill from being implemented unless we get certification that it would not bar a single married woman in this country who is eligible to vote from the ballot box.
If this amendment fails, we are putting 70 million American women at risk of disenfranchisement. Seventy million is one in four voters in this country. This burden will fall hardest on women already forced to navigate broken systems with fewer resources and less time: working mothers, caregivers, women juggling jobs and families.
I cannot believe that in the year 2025, I have to stand here on the House floor of the United States to defend a woman's right to vote, but I will. I will continue to stand here every single day if that is what it takes because this isn't theoretical. This is personal.
It is for the mom in Gresham who can't take unpaid time off to track down new documents. It is for the woman in Hood River whose name no longer matches her birth certificate after marriage and who lacks the $160 it costs to get a passport. Are we really going to tell her she doesn't have a right to vote?
I ask my Republican colleagues to show courage in this moment for your mothers, your daughters, and every woman in your life that you love. Please join your Democratic colleagues in defeating the previous question so that we can vote on my commonsense amendment.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I rise in full support of this rule. As I told my good friends in the Rules Committee today, you are not going to lecture me on compassion. You are not going to lecture me on being kind to the poor and the forgotten.
You are the party who let 15 million illegals in this country, wantonly and deliberately. You are the party who defended a President who wasn't mentally competent.
One of the ladies mentioned that Donald Trump voted from a golf course. Donald Trump could read a thank-you note, unlike President Biden.
Donald Trump had 77 million people who wanted to reverse the course that this country was on for the last 4 years. To hear you all talk all of a sudden about disenfranchisement for females, you are always playing the victim card. Seventy-seven million people rejected that.
Now, on the proxy voting, every one of our friends in the back listening had to show up here. Every one of them had to physically come here. I am in the construction business. Do you think the electrician could vote by proxy to get the house wired? Do you think the dentist could vote by proxy to get the teeth fixed and fillings filled?
It is a joke. With all the problems this country has, here we are, arguing over proxy voting.
You brought up the Speaker voting by proxy. I voted by proxy. Speaker Pelosi put it in order a few times, and no one agrees with this.
The hardworking Americans go to work. When we sign up for this job, as has been said, we agree to come to this Chamber, 435 of us.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I don't even know what the hell he is talking about.
Let me just say this: I never voted by proxy. I helped establish those rules during COVID, but I never did because I followed the rules.
The gentleman voted 63 times by proxy, including one time going to a rightwing Republican political convention. That was not following the rules. So much for being unconstitutional.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Moskowitz).
Mr. Speaker, the Speaker is a Member of this body. There are 435 of us, and the petition process exists so that the other 434 of us have a little bit of power so that if there is an idea that we want to bring to the Chamber, one person can't stop it.
The petition process is about us. It is about the Members, but people are feeling all sorts of kingly these days in D.C. It has been reported that leadership is bribing Members to vote ``no'' so they can have their bills moved and get spots on committees.
I don't understand. The Freedom Caucus just owns you guys. They just own the Republicans. The last time they took you hostage, they removed a Speaker.
Literally, the Freedom Caucus could teach a clinic on Speaker hostage taking. If you don't like the bill, vote against it. Is the Freedom Caucus the only one with power? Is Chip Roy the only one who sits in these seats with power?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
I will refer to him as Representative of Texas. I didn't realize the snowflake thing was a problem.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know that anyone should lecture us on working. The American people work harder than us. We are here only 3 days a week. I mean, you want to talk about working, you guys are not even showing up for your townhalls, so I don't know that you should be lecturing us about working.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their comments to the Chair and not to engage in personalities.
Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today on the House floor, Donald Trump's Secretary of Health is announcing that he is firing over 10,000 healthcare professionals across America. These are the doctors, practitioners, experts, and scientists who keep us safe.
While we stand here today, Elon Musk is trying to buy an election in Wisconsin.
While we stand here, Donald Trump is bragging about tariffs across town while he is saying that he is going to run for President for a third term, which is unconstitutional.
What are Republicans trying to run on the House floor this week? The SAVE Act, which would undermine the voting rights of millions of Americans, and the No Rogue Rulings Act, which
Here they are, trying to sneak in a rule today that would take our power away as Representatives here in the House to ensure that our own Members can care for their children as new parents.
This is what abuse of power looks like: attacking the judiciary, attacking our elections, and attacking our democratic institutions.
We will not stand for it because American democracy is on the line.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up, have a backbone, do what is right, and vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let us not kid ourselves. This isn't just about overdraft fees, mobile apps, or voter registration requirements. This is about one political party, the Republican Party, which has made a deliberate choice to side with the rich and powerful over the people they were elected to serve.
Time and time again, Republicans have shown us exactly who they are.
They are not interested in lifting up working families. They are interested in protecting greedy corporations.
They are not interested or worried about making life easier for everyday people. They are worried about making life easier for the rich and the powerful.
The Republican vision for America is one where the rules don't apply to those at the top and the rest of us are left to fend for ourselves. That is very different from the Democratic vision for America because Democrats believe real freedom means economic security.
We believe opportunity means being able to pay your bills without being gouged by Big Bank overdraft fees. We believe consumers should be protected from fraud.
We believe that working people should come first, not Wall Street, not Silicon Valley, not MAGA billionaires who think democracy is optional.
We believe that this Congress ought to embrace the 21st century. Republicans are using this vote to block Representative Luna from offering her resolution to allow new moms and dads to vote by proxy in this Congress. This is a huge change to centuries of precedent. They are taking power away from a majority, a majority of Members of the House, by blocking a bipartisan resolution.
Let me be crystal clear: A minority of this Chamber is upending what a majority in both parties wants.
I get it. Some of you are obsessed with copying authoritarian regimes, but guess what. We are not in a dictatorship, and Republicans and Democrats should reject this cowardly change.
The American people are watching. They, quite frankly, don't understand the rationale that my Republican colleagues put forward about why new mothers and new fathers have to be here in person while making comparisons to doctors who are operating on patients.
We are casting votes. We are casting votes.
Representative Pettersen, having just given birth to a new baby, should be able to represent her constituents from her district in the safety of her community and in her home.
What the hell is the big deal? Do you think the world is coming to an end? The people who are complaining the loudest are the ones who abused proxy voting when we had it during COVID.
By the way, news flash, everybody: There is a Member of the Republican Party who voted by proxy to do a comedy show on the West Coast just a few months ago, and they all know about it. There is no accountability. There is no one holding anybody to account for that, basically, voter fraud, but they are here on the floor today complaining about new mothers and new fathers being able to vote by proxy.
This is absurd. This is absurd. The American people I know are disgusted by what they are hearing here today. The American people are watching.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this outrageous, antidemocratic rule. I ask my Republican colleagues to stand up and show some courage today because what you are doing today, what the leadership is doing today, is basically precedent setting.
This will come back and haunt you at some point. Don't ruin these precedents. Don't ruin these traditions.
Let's build an economy and a democracy that works for everyone. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have failed. I thought I made it very clear that when I talk about overdraft fees, I am talking about the little guy because the CFPB's rule doesn't recognize the laws of the States that make it a crime in some cases to have an overdraft. It makes it so that the little guy is going to pay more. CFPB didn't take that into consideration, in my opinion. They didn't understand that.
Yet, my colleague on the other side just talks about somehow Republicans are only looking out for the big businesses. No. No, this rule sets up the debate for overturning the CFPB rule and helping the little guy not face $150 to $750--that is in Virginia; I don't know about other States--in charges if they have to deal with a criminal penalty. $50 from the merchant, and they are worrying about a $5 to $35 fee. Yet, they are not paying attention to the real harm. That is it.
We have heard lots of arguments on all the issues included in this rule, and so I think it is important that we pass it. I urge everyone to vote ``yes.''
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 282 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15- minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5- minute votes on:
Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and
The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1491.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, nays 213, not voting 3, as follows:
Mses. KAMLAGER-DOVE and WILSON of Florida changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1491) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the postponement of certain deadlines by reason of disasters applicable to the limitation on credit or refund, and to take postponements into account for purposes of sending collection notices, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 423, nays 0, not voting 8, as follows:
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and the legacy of Lieutenant Malcolm A. Champagne, a World War II veteran and Purple Heart recipient who passed away in December.
As a true patriot, he told his parents on December 17, 1942: ``The country is in trouble. I need to go.'' He then commissioned into the Army Air Forces.
He served as a member of the Eighth Air Force, which was activated in Savannah, Georgia, in January 1942. The Eighth Air Force, commonly referred to as ``The Mighty Eighth,'' is regarded as one of the greatest air forces in history.
On October 14, 1943, the day known as Black Thursday, Lieutenant Champagne's B-17 bomber was attacked and plummeted from the sky. He was captured by the Nazis, but despite injuries, malnutrition, and psychological distress, his spirit remained unbroken.
On April 29, 1945, he was liberated after 18 months in captivity.
In 2023, 80 years after his service in World War II, Lieutenant Champagne was awarded a Purple Heart at the age of 102.
Malcolm Champagne's legacy of bravery, patriotism, and strength will continue to inspire generations of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the so-called SAVE Act.
This bill, coupled with the President's executive order on elections, is a crazy, disgusting, thinly veiled attempt at disenfranchising legal citizens from voting.
It claims to make it illegal for noncitizens to vote, which we already know is not a problem, but this bill would also disenfranchise millions of Americans who don't even have a passport. Millions of Americans do not have a passport.
It also hurts people who were born in rural America, people who were born during a time when births were recorded in family Bibles.
This would just really be devastating. It would also hurt women whose legal names do not match their birth names.
It would end automatic voter registration, voter registration by mail, and other reforms many States have adopted, overriding federalism and State control over elections.
This bill is part of a long-term effort by Republicans to literally make it harder to vote.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, when this bill comes up, to vote ``no'' because it will be a disaster for America and a disaster for democracy.
Mr. Speaker, the average American already thinks that you actually have to be a U.S. citizen to vote in a Federal election. The fact of the matter is that our laws have loopholes. You don't actually have to be a U.S. citizen in some States or don't have to prove that you are a U.S. citizen to vote.
Now, the straw man is presented that if you get married, you change your name. I suggest that anyone who feels that just read the bill. It says an accommodation has to be made in every State for people whose name changed from an otherwise valid proof of citizenship such as a birth certificate.
The bottom line is that Americans expect that only American citizens, and not the 12 million illegal aliens who entered under the last administration, are going to be voting in Federal elections.
Americans expect it, and they expect Congress to do something about it. Mr. Speaker, I urge Congress to take action and pass the SAVE Act.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you something. In Arizona, we have two kinds of ballots. We are the only State that does, and we are really unique in this way. It is a result of a Federal case.
You have State ballots, which require you to prove citizenship to vote on, but not so on Federal ballots. That means to vote for Members of Congress, U.S. Senators, and the President of the United States, you do not have to show citizenship. You don't have to show identification.
The SAVE Act is required if we are going to have election integrity.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for that. It will make the Federal law in Arizona correspond to the State law. That will help Arizona's election integrity.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight this administration's lies to the American people about Social Security.
On the campaign trail, President Trump promised to protect your hard- earned Social Security benefits. However, now he has sent trickster Elon Musk and his flimflam government agency, DOGE, after the Social Security database.
Michelle King was the deputy commissioner for operations at the Social Security Administration for only 28 days before stepping down because she refused to grant the fraudsters at DOGE access to the Social Security database and all the sensitive personal data it holds on everyday Americans. Bravo to Michelle.
The administration got rid of her and replaced her with Leland Dudek, a man who was already under investigation for sharing highly sensitive data with the DOGE team.
While courts across our country step in to try to stop DOGE, its destabilization continues at an alarming rate. I am concerned Elon Musk wants to privatize Social Security and, through his new computer company he just bought, is going to try to be paid by the government to manage those accounts.
DOGE has created serious tech problems, gutted the staff, and overwhelmed call centers, creating much confusion in their wake.
Americans should pay attention to their Social Security. They earned these benefits, and nobody else has a right to them.
