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.
12Expenditure Reports Concerning Official Foreign Travel
13Deletions of Sponsors From Public Bills and Resolutions
Daily Digest
Public Bills and Resolutions Introduced
54 public bills, H.R. 2753- 2806; and 9 resolutions, H. Res. 314-322, were introduced.
Pages H1560-62
Reports Filed
Reports were filed today as follows: H. Res. 308, dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from the Fourteenth Congressional District of Florida (H. Rept. 119-51); H. Res. 309, dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from the Twenty-eighth Congressional District of Texas (H. Rept. 119-52); H. Res. 310, dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from the at-large Congressional District of Alaska (H. Rept. 119-53); H. Res. 311, dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from the Thirtieth Congressional District of Texas (H. Rept. 119-54); H. Res. 312, dismissing the election contest relating to the office of Representative from the Fourteenth Congressional District of Florida (H. Rept. 119-55); H. Res. 313, providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 14) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2025 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2026 through 2034, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-56); H. Res. 186, of inquiry requesting the President to transmit certain documents to the House of Representatives relating to the conflicts of interest of Elon Musk and related information, adversely (H. Rept. 119- 57); and H. Res. 187, of inquiry requesting the President to transmit certain information to the House of Representatives referring to the termination, removal, placement on administrative leave, moved to another department of Federal employees and Inspectors General of agencies, adversely (H. Rept. 119-58).
Page H1560
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Collins to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H1511
Recess
The House recessed at 2:11 p.m. and reconvened at 2:15 p.m.
Page H1525
Recess
The House recessed at 3:08 p.m. and reconvened at 3:30 p.m.
Pages H1530-31
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''
The House passed 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'', by a yea-and-nay vote of 219 yeas to 211 nays, Roll No. 95.
Pages H1514-19, H1532-33
H. Res. 294, the rule providing for consideration of the joint resolutions (S.J. Res. 18) and (S.J. Res. 28) and the bills (H.R. 1526) and (H.R. 22) was agreed to yesterday, April 8th. Disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions'': The House passed S.J. Res. 18, by a yea-and-nay vote of 217 yeas to 211 nays, Roll No. 96.
Pages H1519-25, H1533
H. Res. 294, the rule providing for consideration of the joint resolutions (S.J. Res. 18) and (S.J. Res. 28) and the bills (H.R. 1526) and (H.R. 22) was agreed to yesterday, April 8th. Establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2025 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2026 through 2034: The House considered the Senate amendment to H. Con. Res. 14, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2025 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2026 through 2034. Consideration is expected to resume tomorrow, April 10th.
Pages H1533-50
H. Res. 313, the rule providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 14) was agreed to by a recorded vote of 216 ayes to 215 noes, Roll No. 94, after the previous question was ordered by a yea-and-nay vote of 217 yeas to 212 nays, Roll No. 93.
Pages H1531-32
No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025
The House passed H.R. 1526, to amend title 28, United States Code, to limit the authority of district courts to provide injunctive relief, by a yea-and-nay vote of 219 yeas to 213 nays, Roll No. 98.
Pages H1550-52
Rejected the Ross motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary by a yea-and-nay vote of 212 yeas to 217 nays, Roll No. 97.
Page H1551
H. Res. 294, the rule providing for consideration of the joint resolutions (S.J. Res. 18) and (S.J. Res. 28) and the bills (H.R. 1526) and (H.R. 22) was agreed to yesterday, April 8th. Suspensions--Proceedings Resumed: The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass the following measures. Consideration began Monday, April 7th. Prioritizing Veterans' Survivors Act: H.R. 1228, to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the organization of the Office of Survivors Assistance of the Department of Veterans Affairs, by a 2/3 yea-and-nay vote of 424 yeas with none voting ``nay'', Roll No. 99; and
Pages H1552-53
Veterans Education Transparency and Training Act
H.R. 981, to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the processes to approve programs of education for purposes of the educational assistance programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Page H1553
Recess
The House recessed at 8:46 p.m. and reconvened at 11:20 p.m.
Page H1557
Meeting Hour
Agreed by unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow, April 10th.
Page H1557
Discharge Petition
Representative Casten presented to the clerk a motion to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 250) entitled, a resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1101) to prohibit unlawful access to the payment system of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service within the Department of the Treasury (Discharge Petition No. 2). Senate Referrals: S. 160 was held at the desk. S. 423 was held at the desk.
Page H1514
Senate Message
Message received from the Senate by the Clerk and subsequently presented to the House today appears on page H1514. Quorum Calls--Votes: Six yea-and-nay votes and one recorded vote developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H1531, H5131-32, H1532-33, H1533, H1551, H1551-52 and H1552-53. Adjournment: The House met at 12 p.m. and adjourned at 11:20 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: 164 of 287 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to pass legislation around here. There is a process. It is not really easy to get elected, whether it is here or the Presidency. There is a lot of power that has been bestowed to those that are elected.
We see more and more lately a situation of one judge who is able to step in and say, oh, I don't like that and set aside an executive order or set aside a law that isn't necessarily even a constitutional problem but more philosophical. That is completely wrong.
A district court judge should not be able to block a national policy just because they disagree with it. Darrell Issa's bill puts an end to nationwide injunctions where one judge, often with a political agenda, overrides the will of the voters and halts policies meant to improve our economy, secure our borders, or cut government waste.
Judges were never meant to act as the veto on the executive branch. Their job is to rule on cases before them, not sweeping national edicts well outside of their judicial district. That is what is happening.
We have seen activist judges block Federal employee reforms, stall border security measures, and obstruct regulatory rollbacks. A single judge in San Francisco even stopped the termination of probationary Federal employees, interfering with efforts to make government more efficient. It is wrong, and we need to pass H.R. 1526.
Mr. Speaker, I spent the weekend listening to my constituents, and it damn near broke me.
I heard from seniors worried about Musk's attacks on Social Security and Medicaid, small businesses confronting bankruptcy from Trump's tariffs, and parents seeing their college and retirement savings wiped out.
I met with teachers worried about students who don't have the resources to weather the hardships so casually inflicted by this White House.
I heard from Federal employees who lost their jobs but were more concerned about the veterans and seniors and kids with disabilities they could no
I heard from veterans stunned that they had been fired for no reason and volunteer firefighters who had lost FEMA funding. I heard from a dry cleaner terrified that her family would be deported, even though they have no criminal records and are legally in this country.
I also heard from mental health specialists fighting opioid and fentanyl addiction, whose funding was canceled.
My question for House Republicans is: What does it take to get them to stand up for Americans?
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember and honor the life of my friend, Joshua King, of Weatherford, Texas.
Joshua was a man of strong faith, a dedicated Texas patriot, and a loving family man. Spiritually and physically, he embodied what it means to be a good husband, father, and son. He was a giver who spent his time and energy making the world a better place.
Throughout his battle with cancer, he stayed faithful to God and always trusted in the Lord. No matter the situation, he always managed to see the good in life and to see the good in people.
He loved baseball and the Texas Rangers, the outdoors, and cherished spending time with loved ones. Josh will be remembered for his strength, his courage, selflessness, and faithfulness. He touched people he never knew he touched.
My prayers are with his family, who are my dear friends, and all their friends during this difficult time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Monster Energy American Motocross professional supercross racer Aaron Plessinger on his remarkable victory and his second career win under what many are calling the worst conditions in track history this year.
This wasn't just a race. It was a test of endurance, resilience, and unwavering determination. In the face of deep ruts, relentless mud, and brutal terrain, Mr. Plessinger, ``The Cowboy,'' displayed not only exceptional athleticism but also the kind of mental toughness that defines true champions.
His performance serves as an inspiration not only to inspiring athletes but to Americans who know the success that often comes when the odds are stacked against them.
We salute Aaron's grit, his perseverance, and his example, and we congratulate him on a well-earned victory.
Mr. Speaker, the State of Florida is teeming with champions. I rise today to proudly congratulate Nova Southeastern University on winning the 2025 NCAA Division II Men's Basketball National Championship.
The NSU Sharks, based in Davie, in my congressional district, have made our entire State proud. With a thrilling 74-73 victory over California State University, Dominguez Hills, they capped off a dominant 36-1 season to bring home their second national title in just 3 years. This is such an accomplishment.
Led by Head Coach Jim Crutchfield and tournament MVP MJ Iraldi, these Sharks showed grit, determination, and the excellence that defines Florida's student athletes. Their 23-game winning streak to close the season is nothing short of extraordinary.
These student athletes represent the very best of south Florida excellence, pride, and heart. Their dedication, both on the court and in the classroom, is an inspiration to us all.
We congratulate President Moon, the coaching staff, the students, and alumni. We thank them for bringing another national championship back home to the Sunshine State.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the musical talents of Sorren Morelli. Sorren, a Brookville Area High School junior, has once again earned the prestigious opportunity to perform with the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra.
The Student Side-By-Side program is highly competitive, selecting only the most dedicated and talented student musicians from across the region. Sorren's invitation back for a second year is a testament to his exceptional talent on the violin and unwavering commitment to his craft.
This opportunity is more than just a performance. It is a glimpse into the life of a professional musician. Over 8 weeks, Sorren rehearsed and performed with the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, gaining valuable experience. This, no doubt, will shape his bright future in music education and conducting.
Through his dedication to the Brookfield orchestra, the PMEA festivals, and the Venango Symphony, Sorren has set an example of what passion, discipline, and perseverance can achieve.
We congratulate Sorren on this proud accomplishment, and we look forward to everything his future holds.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Paige Bueckers for her accomplishments in women's basketball and for leading the University of Connecticut women's basketball team to victory in the NCAA championship.
Paige Bueckers graduated from Hopkins High School in 2020. From an early age, she was known across Minnesota for her stellar basketball skills and her outstanding character.
Paige's excellence led her to the University of Connecticut where she was a dominant force in NCAA Division I basketball. Over her career, she amassed many prestigious awards including the ESPY's Best Female College Athlete and was selected as a first team All-American three times.
Winning the NCAA championship with UConn is a testament to her talent, resilience, and leadership on and off the court. Paige's teammates and coaches have praised her for her mentality of putting her team first and for her dedication to their sport.
Paige serves as an inspiration and role model for athletes across the country. Along with the entire State of Minnesota, I am incredibly proud of her and her accomplishments. We will cheer her on as she enters the 2025 WNBA draft, and we can't wait to see what is next for the remarkable Paige Bueckers.
Mr. Speaker, since President Donald Trump achieved a mandate from the American people, leftist judges have imposed multiple nationwide injunctions against his administration exceeding their realm of power. Judges should not have the authority to unilaterally issue warnings that affect the entire Nation.
Today, House Republicans will vote on the No Rogue Rulings Act introduced by Congressman Darrell Issa. This will put a stop to the dangerous judicial activism that is prohibiting President Trump from implementing his agenda for American families and for national security.
This act will prevent partisan judges from abusing the Constitution and will uphold the system of checks and balances as stated in their granted authority.
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.
Mr. Speaker, the stock market is decimated, almost 20 percent down, entering bear territory. At the same time, bond yields are skyrocketing, meaning ordinary Americans are going to have higher interest rates on their credit cards and their mortgages. It means we are going to have to pay more on our debt.
At the same time, the dollar is declining and prices are going up, meaning it is going to be harder to afford groceries.
Mr. Speaker, these are the most self-destructive, wealth-destroying policies any administration has undertaken in modern American history. They have tariffs at 1909 levels at 22.5 percent, making a global trade war. Businesses have lost confidence.
There is only one way out. We need a reset of this President's economic team. Howard Lutnick was talking about building more screws in America, as if we were living in the 19th century. He needs to go.
We need new economic thinkers with this President who actually understand how the economy works and can turn things around.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the courageous men and women responding to the historic ice storm that left tens of thousands without power across northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. Ten counties are under a state of emergency, and our grid suffered near total collapse under nearly 1 inch of ice.
In the face of these challenges, linemen from Michigan and across the country have worked tirelessly in brutal conditions to restore power. This past weekend, I was able to meet with many of our first responders: police, firefighters, dispatchers, and emergency medical teams. They all answered the call, keeping our communities safe and our roads open. Their bravery, professionalism, and dedication embody the spirit of resilience and unity that defines northern Michigan.
The determination of all those affected has not gone unnoticed. My colleagues and I stand ready to support the State's request for Federal assistance.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking these everyday heroes who rose to the challenge helping us rebuild, recover, and emerge stronger.
Mr. Speaker, President Gerald Ford had a vision. He signed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to protect the most vulnerable amongst us: special needs kids.
One of the most cruel things I have seen in my time in Congress and with this administration is the attack on the public servants who promote and have never had the resources to really protect special needs kids.
This President has cut public servants at the Department of Education. Mr. Speaker, 1,315 workers were fired, 572 accepted voluntary separation packages, and 63 probationary workers were terminated. Programs for students with disabilities were moved to the Department of Health and Human Services where 20,000 public servants were cut in January.
There are approximately 7.5 million special needs kids in this country protected by IDEA in the Department of Education. They rely on the public servants who were just fired and eliminated.
The number of students served by IDEA has grown by over 1 million in the last decade. The administration has gutted the Office of Civil Rights which protects these students with disabilities from discrimination. This is outrageous.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the Sierra Pacific girls' basketball team for their incredible 2025 season.
Last month, the Lady Bears won the CIF Central Section Division II championship. This was the highest CIF Central Division a team has won in Sierra Pacific High School history and the highest division a team has ever competed in.
These athletes showed grit, heart, and determination all season long. Their championship win isn't just a testament to their talent but also their discipline.
Wins like this don't just happen. They are earned through constant practice, tough losses, and in never giving up on one another.
They worked hard and trained all year for this, and I am honored to stand here today to celebrate them.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the players, coaches, and families. They have made us all in the Central Valley very proud.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the heroes of the 4th Fighter Wing at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in Goldsboro, North Carolina.
Air Combat Command General Ken Wilsbach awarded 31 incredible and amazing airmen from the 4th Fighter Wing high-level decorations.
The ceremony recognized the airmen for their rapid response and performance in the largest air-to-air engagement in over 50 years.
When faced with unprecedented threats, courage and bravery surged to the forefront. Our servicemembers defended U.S. coalition partners, including Israel, embodying the true essence of service.
These airmen, receiving well-deserved decorations, surrounded by their family and friends, have rightfully earned our Nation's gratitude.
Right here is what American heroes look like, and I am so proud of each and every one of them.
Mr. Speaker, today we recognize the achievements of several students from my district who accepted their appointment to the service academies.
These students demonstrate not just academic achievement but also strong devotion to our country. Young students like these will become our Nation's leaders in the future.
It was my honor to call these students this weekend to congratulate them on this true accomplishment.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Libby Russell and Zanna Paraskevas, who were accepted to the United States Military Academy at West Point.
I congratulate Savion Kirby, Natalie Doig, Audrey Ponton, and Maximilian Perez, who were accepted into the United States Air Force Academy.
I congratulate Victoria Nelson, who was accepted into the United States Naval Academy.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to represent each one of them in the United States House of Representatives.
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"
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 284, I call up 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,'' and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution to overturn the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's deeply flawed final rule on larger participants in general-use digital payment applications.
It sounds complicated, Mr. Speaker, but it is not. This is a midnight rule created by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It is overly broad, and it is imprecise. It treats a wide variety of digital payment applications, peer-to-peer apps, digital wallets, and e-commerce tools, as though they are identical simply because they facilitate payments and serve a large numbers of users.
However, these products are not the same. They serve different models, operate under different rules, and pose different kinds of consumer risks.
This kind of regulatory overreach is bad enough on its own, but what makes this rule especially concerning is the process by which it was created. The CFPB's approach to carry out this rulemaking is a clear example of undemocratic and unjustified action. The CFPB gave the public just 30 days to comment on this proposal. That is 30 days for businesses across the country, Members of Congress, State regulators, and the public to weigh in on a rule that has potentially profound consequences for digital commerce, one of the most rapidly growing portions of Financial Services and FinTech.
In addition, the Bureau rushed to finalize the rule in the waning days of the Biden administration, ignoring much of the stakeholder feedback and pushing it through to try and insulate it from future scrutiny or reconsideration.
Now, this is not the first time that the CFPB has issued rules without sufficient transparency or process. In fact, Members on both sides of the aisle during my years in Congress have routinely criticized the CFPB for rushing matters, not following the process, not giving the public sufficient time to criticize and critique its proposals. However, Mr. Speaker, this needs to be the last time that the CFPB does this.
In a post-Chevron deference world, Congress must step in and assert our Article I authority over independent agencies that stray beyond their statutory authority, bypass the legislative process, and undermine the public trust.
Let's be clear: There is no apparent evidence of widespread consumer harm that justifies this rule. There is no demonstrated market failure here. What we have instead is an agency stretching its mandate in a way Congress never intended.
By allowing this final rule to remain intact, we are affirming that scale alone justifies the regulation, meaning size and scope alone justifies the regulation regardless of the conduct, the risk, or harm to a consumer.
This CFPB approach violates decades of balanced principles in assessing and implementing regulations in finance. It certainly is not the barometer that Congress intended for the CFPB to use when interpreting their authorities.
This is not responsible, risk-based regulation. It is a shortcut to control, applied without the justification that both consumers and innovators deserve.
Some may try to frame this argument as a gift to Big Tech. That is a distraction. This is not about defending large companies. This is about defending good governance, our legislative authority, and the public's right to be part of major and costly regulatory decisionmaking.
If we allow this rule to stand, we are setting a dangerous precedent, one where Federal agencies can bypass Congress, ignore public input, and rewrite rules largely behind closed doors. This is a precedent that we cannot afford to set, regardless of who is in the White House or who is in the crosshairs.
Mr. Speaker, the CFPB operated without accountability or transparency. It has undermined consumer protections, stifled innovation, and eroded public trust.
I encourage my colleagues to support this resolution and reassert the proper role of Congress in setting the regulatory agenda and shaping sound financial policy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 28, a partisan Congressional Review Act resolution that will block the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from supervising payment apps offered by Big Tech firms like Apple and Google.
Before I explain why this resolution is bad, let us not ignore that President Trump and co-president Musk are tearing down key government agencies and programs as we speak, like the CFPB and Social Security.
Last week, the President launched a global trade war against the rest of the world, including our friends, resulting in a record 2-day loss of $6.6 trillion in wealth. Fed Chair Powell warned that these tariffs will lead to higher inflation and job losses.
Later today, Republicans will try to pass the President's budget that is loaded with $7 trillion in tax cuts for Musk and the other Big Tech billionaires, all while they are slashing Medicaid by $880 billion and walking into our agencies and firing employees, some who have been working at these agencies for 10, 15, 20 years, telling them to get out by 5 o'clock.
I absolutely respect the chair of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Hill, and what he does, but to talk about good government, he is absolutely defending what nobody would consider good government. We are in a chaotic position in the government of the United States of America. This is the worst we have ever seen. We have never seen anything like this. As a matter of fact, I think it is a coup d'etat.
I am here today because instead of considering bills to lower costs for consumers, Republicans have called up yet another bill to help out the richest man on the planet, the richest man on the planet who is a friend of Mr. Trump's, who has not been elected by anybody and who is absolutely controlling our government now. He is controlling the firing of people and the destroying of agencies. All of that is being done by an unelected billionaire who is intent on changing this government in ways that make it look like a dictatorship.
Notably, this resolution will shield Elon Musk's X app, which will soon get into the payments business, from supervision and oversight by the CFPB.
The CFPB oversees the largest banks and the services they provide to consumers, including their payment apps. However, until the larger participant rule was issued, the CFPB did not have the authority to supervise and examine the payment platforms of Big Tech companies.
In 2024, the CFPB leveled the playing field between big banks and Big Tech. This rule was necessary because Big Tech and other nonbank firms have increasingly offered mobile wallets and payment apps for consumers to use.
While the same consumer protection laws that apply to the banks do not apply to these big Big Tech firms, it is critical that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau examine them to ensure that they, too, are following the law. This will help the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau oversee these great Big Tech apps to protect the millions of consumers who use them and their digital wallets from fraud, to safeguard their sensitive personal data, and to prevent unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices.
Let's be clear. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule that Republicans want to repeal by passing S.J. Res. 28 imposes no new standards on these big, large payment apps. CFPB's rule simply allows the government to check these companies are following the law--the very law that Congress passed to give the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the authority to examine the largest Big Tech participants.
Payment fraud is at an all-time high, and these payment apps play a big role in that increase. I have received more and more complaints from constituents who have been tricked, scammed, and defrauded out of their hard-earned money on these payment apps. Consumer use of payment apps is only increasing, with lower income households experiencing a disproportionate share of complaints.
Between 2018 and 2021, fraud-related complaints involving Venmo, Cash App, and other payment apps surged by over 460 percent while financial losses skyrocketed by more than 360 percent.
Candidly, we should be working together across the aisle to tackle this rise in payment fraud, not undermining the authority of the agency that can enforce the law. This should not be a partisan issue.
Instead, Democrats have to fight back against both Trump's efforts to kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Republican efforts to gut the authorities of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. I am hopeful that we are making progress in stopping these efforts to protect big Big Tech and predatory lenders.
A district court judge blocked the Trump administration from dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau before the administration appealed the ruling, and even this terrible resolution before us received bipartisan opposition in the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, as we stand here and discuss these anticonsumer CRAs today, our constituents are deeply concerned about losing Social Security and Medicaid because of Elon Musk's reckless cuts to government. Families and businesses across America are struggling as Trump raises taxes on Americans nationwide through tariffs.
It makes no sense to pass legislation that eliminates oversight of these big Big Tech apps while millions of people are being defrauded, scammed, and basically ripped off.
We see this bill for what it is: a thank-you gift to Elon Musk and other Big Tech billionaires who came to Trump's rescue during the 2024 election. We all saw them front and center at Trump's inauguration. You saw those billionaires accompanying him. Why are all the billionaires getting together? They are getting together because they don't want to pay more taxes. They want to get rid of employees who are providing all kinds of services to the constituents of this country in order for the richest people in the country to pay less taxes. Well, all of them run companies that will directly benefit from passing this resolution.
Enough is enough.
I urge Members of this House to show some courage and stand up for consumers. Stand up for the rule of law and reject this harmful legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have a lot more to say, but I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I absolutely think Members of this House should stand up for the rule of law starting with Article I, the legislative authority that we draft the statutes here and direct the independent agencies how to do their rulemakings, under what conditions to do their rulemakings, how to evaluate their rulemakings, and what is a reasonable amount of time to get public input.
We have the right, on behalf of the elected Representatives of the American people, to let our voices be known when a nonelected, to quote my good friend, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), unelected bureaucrat chooses to step beyond the bounds of the statute and do something not in keeping with process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood), my good friend, who serves as the subcommittee chair for the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hill for his attentiveness to this issue, and I thank my colleague in the Senate, my co-lead, Senator Pete Ricketts from Nebraska, for championing this effort and getting the resolution through the U.S. Senate in record time, in less than a week. He beat us to it.
There are a lot of reasons to support this resolution eliminating the larger participant rulemaking from the CFPB.
Number one--think about this--the CFPB finalized this rule in the eleventh hour in January days before the transfer of power, well after other agencies stopped their rulemaking.
Number two, the rule itself is effectively a regulatory power grab by the CFPB's outgoing Biden nominee, Mr. Chopra. By designating companies engaged in payments activities as larger participants, the Bureau will get to expand their examination authority over an amorphous and ill- defined group of firms with payment tools. Given their track record, I think it is fair to say that we should not be supporting greater exam reach of the CFPB.
I don't want our concerns to remain abstract. Let's take a look at some of the practical effects that CFPB examination would have over these payment firms.
First, let's take a look at some of the problems with how the rule actually distinguishes who is and is not a larger participant in payments. The rule does not only apply to tools where consumers are using wallets to exchange funds on a peer-to-peer basis. It also applies to any number of payment intermediaries that assist small businesses and merchants.
For example, express checkout tools would be affected by this rulemaking. Let's say you want to buy an item on the website of a small retailer in Lincoln, Nebraska. If that website allows interfacing with express checkout tools, as many do, then you are going to see the effects from this rulemaking on their ability to easily accept payments from their customers.
Congress aside, everybody in this room should fear what happens at my house when my wife does not have access to express checkout.
According to a survey from the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, 53 percent of small business owners use express checkout tools. When asked whether express checkout services help their business succeed, 94 percent of small businesses agreed that the online payment tool is boosting their businesses' growth.
Yet, despite the obvious potential for Main Street and small business effects from this rulemaking, the CFPB failed to conduct any substantive analysis of the effects this rulemaking would have on small businesses or even conduct a sufficient cost-benefit analysis of the rulemaking more broadly.
The reason was the Bureau was less interested in the cost of the rule than in expanding their own regulatory reach. This rule is a perfect example of regulate first, ask questions later. That was the approach of Director Chopra.
Ultimately, this style of regulation is going to chill innovation and hurt the smallest players that depend on these technologies to compete with the big guys.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by myself and 19 Financial Services Committee Republicans to Director Chopra in 2023.
Mr. Speaker, in addition, the Bureau has consistently tried to imply their authority would not only apply to tech companies, but there is a chance they could bring merchants into their regulatory purview as well. The general counsel of the CFPB said in a speech during Director Chopra's tenure that merchants might be implicated as large payment players in the future if they aren't mom-and-pops.
Last year, in response to a question on the record from me on this topic, the Director made the case that a merchant that incorporates payment capabilities directly into a website could potentially blur the lines between banking and commerce and, therefore, be subject to the CFPB oversight in the future.
However, Dodd-Frank explicitly calls for an exclusion for the merchants from the CFPB's regulatory purview. That idea that a merchant engaging in a commercial financial activity due to payment activities in a merchant's own store or website is outright ridiculous, and it represents yet another expansion of the CFPB's rapidly growing authority.
Finally, I would like to highlight another major concern with CFPB examination authority of these firms and what it would bring. The firms within the scope of this rulemaking are payments firms, but some of these firms also have a social media element to their businesses.
If we fail to act here in Congress, there will be career bureaucrats from the CFPB with the authority to examine some of the most influential social media companies in the country behind the scenes.
Do any of us really think that a liberal CFPB examiner would restrict their comments to only a social media company's payment activities?
Are we sure that they wouldn't provide some ``feedback'' on the free speech policies of Meta or X?
Leaving this rulemaking in place could provide the next Democratic administration with the tools that they need to more directly influence even social media.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It is interesting that my friend, Chairman Hill, raised process concerns over the CFPB, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, rule that would include following the Administrative Procedure Act.
Mr. Speaker, really? This doesn't make good sense.
Shouldn't Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE minions have to follow the law?
Let me be clear. It is unconstitutional for the President to delete the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or any other agency without congressional approval.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets.
Mr. Speaker, we are here to deal with two regulations, the first dealing with payment systems, and the second dealing with overdraft protection. In both cases, I came here for the entertainment value to watch Republican after Republican tell us how much the majority doesn't trust the Trump administration. It is as if Trump doesn't control the CFPB.
Mr. Speaker, the regulation we are considering now is just a regulation that says that this is an area we are going to look at. Republicans are afraid the Trump administration will look at it. It doesn't do anything except begin a process.
Mr. Speaker, as to both of these CRAs, the effect is not only to erase what was done under the Biden administration but prohibit the new administration from adopting any consumer protection. That is because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want zero consumer protection and the Trump administration to have an excuse.
The excuse is: Congress passed the CRA. We are prohibited from writing a regulation in that area.
The Republican administration could rewrite these rules. Congress could overwrite these rules. Instead, we are erasing the rules and prohibiting other rules from being there.
Mr. Speaker, I spent this morning being told that we need to have cryptocurrency because it is going to be this great payment system and, for some reason, the payment systems that use U.S. dollars aren't good. Now I am here on the floor being told that Venmo and its competitors are so wonderful that there should be absolutely no regulation.
On the one hand, we have to create a new currency for drug dealers, and, on the other hand, the current system using the U.S. dollar shouldn't even be regulated because it is perfect.
Why do we need to regulate here? First, to prevent excessive fees; second, to prevent deception; but, third--and this is obvious--to prevent the loss of consumer money.
Venmo is holding $7 billion of consumers' money. If you have a tiny bank that is one-tenth or one-hundredth the size of Venmo, you have to make sure that you have reserves. You can't take the money to the horse races. Yet, Venmo can do anything with the money. If they lose the $7 billion, you as a consumer are out of luck, and Trump can say: It wasn't my fault because Congress prohibited us from having prudential regulations.
If an entity in the transactions business is going to hold $7 billion of consumers' money, shouldn't we at least make sure that the money is still there, and shouldn't we make sure that they don't engage in Botswana currency swaps and others with the highest risk transactions they can find to perhaps make a lot of money or lose all of the consumers' money. Heads, I win. Tails, the consumers lose.
Mr. Speaker, I will take 1 minute or 2 to talk about the other regulation because, after Members vote against the first of these resolutions, you are going to feel so good that you are going to want to vote against the second one.
This is the one that limits overdraft fees to $5 for the big banks, the 175 biggest banks, or they can charge what their actual cost is if it is more than $5. It requires disclosure of what these overdraft fees are going to be.
It will save American consumers $6.1 billion every year. If we are concerned about inflation, why shouldn't we tell the banks that overdraft is not a profit center? They can recover their costs or maybe a little bit more, but they don't turn to the consumer and say: You were so dumb that you had an overdraft, so we are going to hit you with a wild fee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, do not vote to prohibit regulation of payment systems. Do not vote to prohibit limitations on overdraft protection. Do not vote to allow $6.1 billion to be transferred from constituents to the biggest banks in the country. Vote ``no,'' and then vote ``no'' again.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, known as CFPB, was created for one reason: to protect everyday people from getting ripped off, especially when tech companies start acting like banks.
If a tech company wants to be trusted with your money, it should play by the same rules as any bank. That is what the CFPB was doing. It was making sure the rules apply to everyone.
Yet, Elon Musk doesn't want to follow the rules. He wants to turn X, formerly known as Twitter, into a payment platform without any accountability and no rules. If you get scammed, that is too bad. No refunds, nothing, nada.
The people who will get hurt are those people like in my district who I represent: young people, working families, and folks just starting to save for the future. We are fighting to protect them because the CFPB isn't just a watchdog. It is a lifeline.
We are not going to stand by while Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and their billionaire buddies try to kill it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore), the distinguished former speaker of the house of North Carolina, who is a new member of the House Committee on Financial Services.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 28, a joint resolution to overturn the CFPB's final rule targeting larger participants in general-use digital consumer payment applications.
This rule is a textbook case of regulatory overreach. It stems from a flawed process and applies an overly broad approach that blurs important distinctions between very different products and services in the digital economy.
Rather than taking a thoughtful and tailored approach, the CFPB opted for a sweeping rule that treats all digital payment services as if they are the same, ignoring critical differences that matter for both consumers as well as providers.
When regulators fail to distinguish fundamentally different products, they don't just risk getting it wrong, but they guarantee it. The digital economy is too important and evolving too quickly for blanket policies built on vague definitions and rushed processes. We need thoughtful, targeted oversight that reflects reality, not a one-size- fits-all mandate that will do more harm than good.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Flood and Chairman Hill for their work on this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, CFPB's larger participant rule does not apply any new consumer protection standards. It only helps the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ensure that Big Tech companies comply with the laws they must already follow.
Both banks and nonbanks are already subject to Federal consumer financial protection laws, but Consumer Financial Protection Bureau supervision is a key tool to ensure that Big Tech follows the law and does not misuse consumer data and that consumers are not being scammed, defrauded, or unlawfully debanked.
This rule allows the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to also conduct routine exams of the 17 largest nonbank payment apps that facilitated $12.8 billion payment transactions in 2021 with a total dollar value of about $1.7 trillion.
This is not the first time the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has used this authority in this way. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau previously issued five larger participant rules to examine the largest
Why should Big Tech get special treatment? Why should they be treated any differently?
Our colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood), claimed that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau did not conduct sufficient cost-benefit analysis for this rule, but that is not accurate. There are more than 30 pages of highly detailed cost-benefit analysis, and the gentleman just doesn't like it.
Mr. Speaker, we know that side of the aisle wishes to kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans have tried in every way possible. Yet, this side of the aisle maintains that our constituents send us here to represent them. Consumers need somewhere to make complaints. Those complaints need to be investigated. Organizations need to be fined if those operations or organizations are abusing them or misusing them.
Mr. Speaker, as we debate this issue, I remind everyone what is truly happening. Through this CRA, Republicans are opening the door for President Trump and co-president Musk to further enrich themselves and all of their business ventures with their own digital payment systems, including X and Trump's new payment system, Stablecoin.
Mr. Speaker, this is a point that everybody should pay attention to: The President of the United States and his family have created their own crypto companies. In addition to that, in the middle of us trying to negotiate on Stablecoin to come to some agreement about guardrails to protect the average investor, he has now founded a new company where he is going to own Stablecoin.
As a matter of fact, Republican efforts to dismantle and weaken the CFPB's authority allows Trump and Musk's companies to conveniently avoid the CFPB's oversight and supervision.
When I was chair of the Committee on Financial Services, Democrats held Big Tech companies to account, including convening a hearing with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over his plans to develop cryptocurrency called Libra.
Moreover, when Democrats led passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, we empowered the CFPB to supervise any large nonbank, including Big Tech, when they facilitate payments or offer financial products to consumers to ensure that consumers are always protected, no matter who they are dealing with.
Mr. Speaker, what we are dealing with now through Trump's and Musk's unapologetic conflicts of interest and self-profiteering poses far greater risks.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is extraordinarily important. We worked hard for consumers to have somewhere to go when they have complaints about being ripped off. Why is it that we would have any Member of Congress in any way oppose protecting our consumers? I can't answer that. I don't know why.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, Seth Frotman, CFPB's former general counsel and student loan ombudsman summed up our current situation well. He testified: ``You, your family, your neighbors, and your community are at risk today because President Trump, Elon Musk, and Russell Vought have corruptly handed over the keys of our Nation's consumer watchdog to the largest banks and tech companies in the world. What is happening at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an insult--to Congress, to the rule of law--to all of us.''
``When you look past the rhetoric--the deceptively labeled bills touting through-the-looking-glass `reform'--what is going on in the executive branch, alongside what is being talked about here in Congress, really boils down to the one time-tested proposition: Which side are you on?
``If you are going to stand idly by when the Nation's consumer watchdog is decimated--if you push a legislative agenda of more junk fees, abusive medical debt collection practices, Big Tech domination, and predatory lending--then the answer is pretty clear.''
Mr. Speaker, S.J. Res. 28 is opposed by nearly 200 consumer, civil rights, religious, and good governance organizations. It was also opposed by a bipartisan group of Senators. I urge my colleagues to vote for American consumers, not the unelected Elon Musk and other Big Tech oligarchs and billionaires that are just waiting to take over this country. Vote ``no'' on this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that, again, we are talking about unelected bureaucrats in an agency that is not following the strict direction of Congress and have overreached in how they have proposed this rule at the last minute at the end of the Biden administration. It is truly a midnight rule with limited comment period.
Mr. Speaker, 30 days is the minimum under anybody's consideration of a fair-minded Administrative Procedure Act comment period. Yet, everything you read says that it should be extended if market participants feel like they haven't been heard, and 30 days at the end of an administration over the holiday period at the end of the year is not sufficient time for Members of Congress, market participants, consumers, and others to weigh in. I do have process concerns about how the former director of the CFPB carried on this particular proposal.
Secondly, my colleagues have talked about the substance of it and how it is confusing and steps beyond, again, the mission and the direction by Congress to the CFPB.
My good friend from California (Ms. Waters), the ranking member of the full committee, referenced several other large participant-type rules that had been proposed by the CFPB, but they were in discrete market segments.
Mr. Speaker, this is actually one of the biggest concerns about this proposal. It is a wide variety of digital payment services from peer- to-peer apps, to a digital wallet, to e-commerce tools, like the gentleman from Nebraska talked about, as if they are identical simply because they facilitate a certain number of payments, but they are not substantively the same. They can't be treated identically. That is a huge flaw in this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reiterate my support for Mr. Flood's support of S.J. Res. 28. He has worked hard on this with Senator Ricketts from his home State of Nebraska. They stand on the facts that a vote for this resolution is a vote to prevent the CFPB from stifling financial innovation with its one-size-fits-all approach and limiting customers' access to increased access to financial payments.
Nonbank providers of digital payments are already being regulated at both the State and the Federal levels. American consumers did not petition us, Mr. Speaker, to intervene in this way at the last minute in the waning days of the Biden administration. Of all the CFPB's annual complaints that they collect year in and year out, less than 1 percent even touch on this market.
This Congressional Review Act will overturn last-minute rulemaking from the Biden-Harris administration and ensure that consumers have access to innovative financial products.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support S.J. Res. 28, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution.
The question is on third reading of the bill.
The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 294, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 18) disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions,'' and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this joint resolution of disapproval.
Today, we can protect consumers and ensure continued access to financial services by voting to nullify the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's disastrous rule on overdraft fees.
In a time burdened by the 40-year-high inflation, when many middle- and low-income households are living paycheck to paycheck, ensuring Americans have access to affordable credit has never been more important.
Overdraft protection is an optional service that financial institutions provide to help consumers avoid having purchases declined. Instead of the transaction being denied, the bank or credit union charges a flat fee to cover the check on behalf of that consumer. It lets that purchase proceed. It lets that payment to a utility company proceed. It lets that payment for an important rent or mortgage company to proceed, thereby allowing American families to take care of essential needs like that mortgage payment, rent payment, groceries, or gas before their next paycheck arrives.
Over the last decade, competition has driven financial institutions to lower their overdraft privilege fees to retain customers. Innovation has made accidental overdrafts less likely as many financial institutions now offer low balance alerts, automatic transfers from savings, and other tools to help consumers avoid being in overdraft and better manage their financial cash flow.
Competition and innovation, not government-mandated price caps, remain the best way to ensure consumers have access to affordable financial products and services.
Unfortunately, this CFPB rule undermines this very approach and threatens to restrict access to credit and overdraft privileges, which all of us should be concerned about.
The CFPB's rushed and haphazard approach to the rule is a clear example of how not to regulate. The CFPB made this decision before conducting meaningful research or considering the real-world consequences of its actions.
The CFPB's rule imposes a government-mandated price cap on what financial institutions may charge in the way of a fee for an overdraft privilege.
Like all price caps, this would reduce the availability of these very overdraft services, especially, Mr. Speaker, for consumers who have lower credit scores or are considered high risk.
By doing so, it effectively limits access to credit and that overdraft privilege for those who need it the most at the time they need it the most.
The CFPB's failure to consider the cost associated with this regulation, especially the real-world impact on consumers, their local community's financial institution, and the broader financial system only underscores the need to stop this price control before it is too late.
The CFPB also creates a false narrative of choice by suggesting that banks and credit unions can either offer an overdraft service at this federally mandated price fixed cost of $5 or comply with extending that as credit and, therefore, complying with the Truth in Lending Act. In other words, actually underwriting a consumer loan instead of simply offering the overdraft--simple, straightforward, fast, overdraft fee.
This redefinition of what products and services constitute credit thus is problematic, especially since Congress has already defined credit for regulatory purposes.
Even more troubling is the way the CFPB oversimplifies the costs of providing overdraft protection.
The rule only considers the cost of operating a call center and ignores the many other expenses involved such as ratifying and dealing with consumer disputes, mailing and postage for overdraft notices, third-party collection expenses, technology costs, and cost of regulatory compliance.
The reality is that these additional costs make it increasingly difficult for banks to continue offering overdraft protection. Many will simply choose to stop providing the service altogether. Those who will suffer the most from this are the very people the rule is designed to protect.
Mr. Speaker, in 2023, a survey found that 92 percent of customers who were aware their balance wouldn't cover a transaction preferred paying the overdraft fee rather than having their transaction declined. Not only is it inconvenient or potentially embarrassing in a particular situation, but it is also fundamental to in-between paycheck cash flow. They are making the decision to go into overdraft so they make that mortgage payment on time, despite buying clothes for back to school and trying to do Christmas shopping.
In my experience with my customers, over my many years of working with families, I never found one who was not a worthy steward of how to use these services.
Another survey found that 64 percent of customers think it is reasonable for a bank to charge an overdraft fee, and 72 percent feel these fees are justified, particularly when it helps them ensure timely payment of a much larger important bill, like a mortgage or rent.
In my experience of helping families across rural Arkansas for many years, as I said, managing their finances, they are pretty smart about how to do that, Mr. Speaker.
The truth is if the consumers lose access to overdraft protection, they will be forced to turn to alternative sources of credit that may be more expensive and riskier, have less consumer protection and documentation, and be less holistically handled than they would be at their home community financial institution or credit union.
I encourage all of my colleagues to support this resolution to restore common sense to our regulatory framework and ensure that consumers continue to have access to the financial services on which they rely.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in complete opposition to yet another harmful bill put forth by Republicans, S.J. Res. 18, a resolution to allow the biggest banks to increase fees on their customers. You heard me right. I said this resolution will increase bank fees, and it will
Despite Trump and Republican campaign promises to lower prices, the President decided to launch a global trade war just last week that wiped out a 2-day record of $6.6 trillion of wealth, affecting the retirement savings of millions of Americans. Moreover, the Fed Chair has said these policies will fuel higher inflation by sending the prices of consumer goods up.
It doesn't seem like the President cares about prices anymore, saying: ``I couldn't care less. I hope they raise their prices because, if they do, people are going to buy American-made cars. We have plenty.'' Trump doesn't care that prices for cars and other goods will rise significantly.
We are here today because Republicans now want to overturn a rule that limits bank overdraft fees to $5, down from $35 or more, and saves consumers $5 billion a year. Not surprisingly, more than 80 percent of Americans, including Republicans, want to get these high overdraft fees under control, yet Republicans will vote to take off the limits on these fees and say that higher fees are good for America.
Let's clear up a few myths. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule does not ban overdraft fees. Rather, it sets a reasonable limit at $5 per overdraft charged by the biggest banks in America.
Despite what opponents may claim, the rule does not impose a hard cap on this fee. It provides flexibility for large banks to charge more if their estimated costs and losses in providing this service are higher than $5. The rule even allows big banks to charge higher fees if they provide a simple, upfront disclosure to consumers.
Think about that. Why is it if you want to charge more money than the $5, you don't want to tell your customers that you are raising and charging more? I don't get it.
That is right, the biggest banks can feel free to charge higher fees, but they just have to tell consumers that they plan to do so.
Furthermore, this rule does not apply to any small community banks or credit unions. In fact, 97 percent of all banks and virtually all credit unions are completely exempt from the rule. Let me say that again. Community banks and nearly all credit unions are exempt from the rule. We are only debating whether the biggest banks in America should be able to raise these fees.
Republicans will try reverse psychology to convince Americans that it is in their best interests to fork over even more money to the big banks.
Mr. Speaker, let me help Republicans out. Making Americans pay high overdraft fees only benefits the big banks, no one else.
Let me be even clearer. A vote for this resolution is a vote for big banks. A vote for this resolution is a vote for big fees. A vote for this resolution is a vote against your constituents.
Don't just take my word for it. Nearly 300 consumer, civil rights, labor, religious, and community groups all across the country strongly oppose this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, these fee increases that Republicans are trying to jam down Americans' throats couldn't come at a worse time. The Federal Reserve reported that a key metric of inflation is going up, and that was before President Trump sent the stock market further into the tank with the global trade war he launched last week.
Republicans promised that inflation would go down and the stock market would thrive under his leadership, but 4 months into the new administration, that has proven to be false.
Whether you like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or not, it just doesn't make good sense to hike bank fees on 23 million hardworking families.
Democrats on the Financial Services Committee voted unanimously to oppose this resolution at a markup in February, and I urge all of my colleagues to unanimously reject it on the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that the gentlewoman from California knows my respect for her and her leadership on our committee, but there is no effort here to raise overdraft fees in this resolution. It is quite the contrast. All we are saying is we don't need the Federal Government having a price cap on a product that is a very competitive product, with many, many banks not even charging for overdraft protection.
There is nothing hidden, Mr. Speaker, about fees on overdrafts. The Electronic Fund Transfer Act signed by this Congress made it clear decades ago that consumers must opt in to overdraft protection. Let me repeat that. Consumers select to do this. They shop for financial institutions online, down the street, whatever. They pick their credit union or bank to do business with. If they want overdraft protection to make sure that they are actually being protected on an extra payment or some bill they have between paychecks, they have it. It is completely spelled out.
Regulation DD in the Truth in Savings Act requires financial institutions to provide that information. Clearly, customers opt in to it.
Mr. Speaker, I promise you, I had it all through my early career when I couldn't make payments between paychecks. A young family, one income, lots of children, a lot of expenses, you do it. It is a good, prudent practice.
As a community banker for decades, I can promise you families were smart about it. There is nothing hidden about it. It is fully present. Consumers opt in to it, and the competition is intense to retain those customers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose), my good friend. Mr. Rose was the Commissioner of Agriculture in Tennessee before coming to Congress. He is a very active member of both the House Financial Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee. He has rural Tennesseans and their financial success at heart.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hill for yielding me time to discuss this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the sky was the limit when it came to regulations for the last administration. Our Nation endured 4 years of costly new rules, rules that continue to wreak havoc on our economy and stunt economic growth. Indeed, it is going to take some time to undo the mess from the last White House.
S.J. Res. 18 puts us one step closer to cleaning up this mess. It calls the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's overdraft rule what it is: drastic, punitive, and harmful to banks and credit unions. It also stands to harm the very people it purports to protect.
Mr. Speaker, I share with you today a story of a lady in one of the towns in my district, Lafayette, who said to me fairly recently: ``Please don't take away my overdraft protection.''
If the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau requires banks to charge no more than $5 for a $200 overdraft, we will likely see an end to that service altogether. No one wants to overdraft. Unfortunately, it isn't uncommon. In fact, many Americans can recall using overdraft services and them being a lifeline at one point or another in their lives. This is just one of many examples of overreach by the last administration, and it must be overturned.
In America, we celebrate capitalism. We encourage competition. We don't smother our financial institutions just for political favor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution in defense of financial institutions that choose to extend overdraft lifelines to their customers who need them.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Waters for her leadership, under which we have advocated to create an economy that works for all people, not just Elon Musk and wealthy billionaires.
That is why I oppose this measure to overturn the Consumer Financial Protection--emphasis on ``Protection''--Bureau rule that caps overdraft fees by banks at $5.
The work of CFPB has been cost-saving and life-changing, but this resolution would undo that progress. Whether it is an elder whose Social Security
Let's be honest, it is our most vulnerable who will bear the brunt of the harm. For the single parent who has to pay bills today with money that is coming tomorrow, overdrafting may be their only option. The exorbitant fees, sometimes $35 for every overdraft, would further push them into debt.
It is a shame the Republicans are attacking poor people just to help greedy bank CEOs get richer, the shame and the sham of it all.
I oppose this resolution and encourage everyone to stand with working people who are struggling to make every single dollar stretch.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald), a greater leader there, a fine leader in this House on the Judiciary Committee, and an active member on the House Financial Services Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Chairman Hill's resolution to overturn the CFPB's misguided overdraft rule.
In Wisconsin, community banks and credit unions are the backbone of our local economies. They know their customers. They serve their neighbors. They provide trusted financial tools like overdraft protection to help families manage their emergencies.
Overdraft protection is a critical tool that helps families avoid declined transactions, bounced checks, and costly disruptions. It does so transparently with clear disclosure.
A 2023 study from the Financial Health Network found consumers want overdraft services and the flexibilities that they provide.
The CFPB rule amounts to government price controls that will limit access to a lawful, contractually agreed-upon product. The rule will not help working families. It will hurt them.
By capping fees below the costs of providing the service, many banks and credit unions will be forced to reduce or eliminate overdraft programs altogether.
Because of the CFPB's rule on overdrafts, consumers will lose options. The resolution will repeal the CFPB's rule and protect consumers.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rose, I believe, said that there are constituents who say: Don't stop my overdraft. However, did they say: Charge me exorbitant amounts for overdraft? I don't think so.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).
Mr. Speaker, I think it is incredibly shameful that my Republican colleagues want to gut the rule that capped most credit card late fees at just $5.
Credit card companies over the people we represent, that is what they are choosing with this.
Working families, as many of us know, are struggling with rising costs. Mr. Speaker, 60 percent of the residents who we represent live paycheck to paycheck.
Did you know when this all came about, it was because our country found out through investigation that credit card companies were building business plans where 50 percent of their profit came from late fees. They basically built a business plan for overdraft fees. That is what they did.
Now my colleagues right here want to overturn the rule that prevents the biggest banks--think about this, this is not like small banks, this is the biggest banks--from exploiting, shamefully targeting the American people.
I know overturning this rule will cost $5 billion annually. That averages about $225 per household that would have to pay the overdraft fees that many of these folks put business plans together on.
Credit card late fees, Mr. Speaker, also widen the racial wealth gap. They impact and put a heavy burden on some of the poorest communities, working-class folks. These are frontline workers.
Gutting the overdraft rule is a slap in the face of the families, again, who are already struggling to make ends meet. This is raising the costs for families when we don't check corporate greed.
Again, these are credit card companies that you all are hollering about right now. I wish you would do that for people who are sick and can't afford their diabetes medicine or those who are struggling right now with wage theft in their workplace. These are all things that we could actually be fighting for right now for our families, like the rising cost of groceries, but instead we are wasting time advocating on behalf of credit card companies, not the people who we represent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say that the gentlewoman makes a good point about financial management when it comes to late fees and accelerated interest rates on credit cards. That is why we are actually talking about overdraft protection today, because time and time again people take advantage of affordable, convenient, disclosed, not hidden overdraft protection so that their family can avoid a late fee on a credit card, which she just gave an excellent overview of her concerns about.
If we want to do that, then give people the financial tools that they have in overdraft protection without micromanagement from the Federal Government. Don't take my word for it or anyone on this side of the aisle.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that artificial price caps, like the one being discussed, being proposed by the CFPB on overdraft protection programs, reduced the supply, leading to fewer bank accounts for low-income families, period, full stop. I hear all the concern.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell). We are glad to have his voice in this debate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution to overturn a ludicrous rule which imposes government price controls on financial institutions across the country.
The Biden administration's CFPB issued this rule right before they left town, and they sold it as a defense of consumers. Mr. Speaker, you can say something a million times, and it still won't make it true.
Instead of helping consumers, government price controls will simply lead to more denied transactions and less consumer freedom.
Here is the reality, Mr. Speaker: Many local banks across the country already offer overdraft services that provide Americans a safety net on their financial services, and it is exactly these types of services that foster competition, giving consumers a choice in where to bank.
This resolution would repeal the Biden administration's government price control scheme. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that Democrats created a watchdog, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to stop scams and protect everyday people. One of the most important things they have done
Well, for some reason, the Republicans want to get rid of this. I don't know why. Maybe it is because their bank buddies like JPMorgan Chase made about $58 billion in profit last year, and $1 billion of that came from junk fees, just like the overdraft fee Republicans are now trying to allow banks to raise.
However, Republicans aren't worried about that. They don't worry about bounced checks because Republicans live in a different world, a world where banks win and families lose.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.'' Vote for people, not for banks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Downing), a new member of the House Financial Services Committee. We are so delighted to have his expertise on our committee. He has a securities regulatory background. He was the State auditor. He serves on our committee and on the House Small Business Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Hill for his leadership in bringing this important legislation to the floor.
The bill we have before us today reverses perhaps the most misunderstood rulemaking in financial services. On its face, you may look at a proposal to cap overdraft fees and think, wow, that sounds like a great idea. After all, who wants to pay more in fees?
However, in reality, the CFPB's rule capping overdraft fees is nothing more than an eleventh hour effort from Biden's rogue financial regulators to score political points at the expense of everyday Americans.
Financial institutions have to be able to generate profit from the products they offer. Otherwise, they will not be able to offer them at all.
By capping overdraft fees, the CFPB has made it increasingly more costly for banks and credit unions, especially those that service folks in rural districts like mine, to offer overdraft protection.
When these lenders are no longer able to charge competitive rates, they may be forced to cover the cost by increasing other critical services or stop offering the services altogether.
What does that result in? It results in less choice and less protection.
Imagine a single mother trying to make ends meet. She needs to feed herself and her son, the rent is due, but she doesn't have enough in her account to cover both. If she is not able to access overdraft protection or other far riskier means of short-term liquidity, imagine the outcome.
This rulemaking doesn't help people in these positions as it pretends to. It jeopardizes their survival.
When governments act as though they know better than the consumers and the markets, everyday people pay the price. Let's not make that mistake today. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California, the ranking member, for fighting predatory lending over the years.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose S.J. Res. 18 which would dismantle important protections against predatory overdraft practices.
Let me be absolutely clear: Overdraft protection is a profit center for big banks disguised as a service fee. These institutions made over $9 billion from overdraft fees last year alone.
When a constituent in my district gets a $35 charge for a $5 purchase, that is not covering bank costs, that is a 700 percent markup designed purely to boost profits.
The CFPB's rule only affects banks with assets over $10 billion, institutions that would remain highly profitable without these predatory practices. These megabanks aren't using overdraft fees to stay afloat.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution to overturn the CFPB's overdraft rule. This is a classic midnight maneuver from the previous administration that ignored market realities.
Let's be clear: It is competition, not heavy-handed regulation that drives down costs. According to the CFPB's own data from 2020 to 2023, overdraft fees fell by 50 percent without this rule. That means the market is working, and that is why I support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, my constituents are struggling with high costs and inflation, and more and more families are living paycheck to paycheck, and still the supporters of this bill are trying to increase their fees? I can't and I won't get behind that. It is out of touch.
Not only is that hurting our families, but it is also unfairly penalizing our kids, who are trying to learn financial responsibility.
My son recently got a debit card. He is 14, and he uses it for small stuff and things like buying PlayStation skins, Fortnite skins, whatever kids buy. If he accidentally spends more than he has, $35, in my opinion, is too high of a penalty. The average American kid would have to work 5 hours at the Federal minimum wage to get that back. I think that is crazy.
Every American should have the opportunity to participate in our economy and not be on their knees when they do. I strongly oppose this resolution, and I support the rule to cap overdraft fees at $5.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the vice chairman of our full committee, who has such distinguished service on our committee. He is a leader in every way and also in the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Mr. Speaker, the Bureau's overdraft rule would implement government price controls over a product that has proven necessary for consumers to make day-to-day purchases.
Today, Congress has an opportunity to invalidate this Biden-era rule that, if implemented, would severely impact community banks and local credit unions by restricting the services they can offer, while at the same time depriving millions of Americans of an important financial safety net.
According to a 2024 survey, consumers stated that they use overdraft services because they lack credit alternatives. Taking away this backstop, which Americans say they use when in a pinch for food, utilities, and transportation, only further limits the financial options that they have available to them.
According to a New York Fed study--not exactly a conservative institution, I will tell you that--entitled, ``Who Pays the Price? Overdraft Fee Ceilings and the Unbanked,'' the New York Fed says: ``Overdraft fee caps hinder financial inclusion. When constrained by fee caps, banks reduce overdraft coverage and deposit supply, causing more returned checks and a decline in account ownership among low- income households.''
Mr. Speaker, I happen to know that because I have represented some of the poorest counties in the State of Michigan in my time in Congress. This is a valuable tool those on the lower end of the economic rung use.
After the November election and President Trump won, regulators got the message, for the most part, to stop their rulemaking and put their pens down. However, Director Rohit Chopra couldn't help himself.
This is a clear example of government knows best, and we know what this is really about. Fewer community banks and credit unions will lead to more consolidation and less options. I believe most Members here share a common goal to ensure financial inclusion, as well as financial literacy and
After the bank failures of 2023, community financial institutions lost consumers and remain at a disadvantage. Again, any rule that leads to greater consolidation in the banking industry only benefits the largest financial institutions in America, a class of banks regularly attacked by Members on the other side, and yet now they are trying to help them.
Although overdraft is one of the most transparent and competitive products available in depository banking, they make up about 2 percent of consumer complaints.
How have the banks responded? They have responded by proactively taking steps to promote further transparency in their overdraft products without government intervention. This includes low-balance alerts, grace periods, and other innovative tools that make sure consumers are protected from unnecessary fees.
Financial institutions in my home State of Michigan, who represent roughly 12 million customers and hundreds of billions of dollars in deposits, have shared stories of consumers who use this overdraft strategy to ensure important expenses are paid. Rent, utilities, and medical bills are ultimately paid when a shortfall exists.
Mr. Speaker, with that, I request a ``yea'' vote from my colleagues.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans keep complaining about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Let's review the terrible things they have done.
Since 2011, they secured more than $21 billion for 205 million consumers who were harmed by bad actors including the biggest banks. The agency has received more than 10 million complaints from harmed consumers, and insured financial firms responded. That is, on average, 25,000 complaints each week.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau helps servicemembers, veterans, students, and older Americans. Mr. Speaker, they don't care who you are. They help Republicans, Independents, and Democratic consumers. The CFPB will not be able to help anyone if Trump and Musk are successful in shutting them down.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Liccardo).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to commemorate liberation month. A week ago, Liberation Day brought us President Trump's tariffs which will liberate a typical American family from 3,800 of their hard-earned dollars each year, according to one study.
The Trump slump, moreover, has liberated our retirement accounts from more than 6 trillion of those hard-earned dollars through market losses.
In week 2 of liberation month, the Republican majority proposes S.J. Res. 18 which will increase the annual cost of bank overdraft fees on American families by an average of $225, collectively liberating all of us of 5 billion more of our dollars in a given year.
Remember, the average debit card overdraft is less than $26. Mr. Speaker, it is repaid typically within 3 days on average. A typical overdraft fee of $35, which is what we had before the rule, amounts to an interest rate of more than 16,000 percent APR on the bank's loan of $26. Mr. Speaker, that is usurious. American families cannot afford any more liberation.
It is not as though we have a history here in which banks have always complied with the notion that these overdraft fees are simply to offer a service. We know that it has been used to pump up profits, in fact, illegally on several occasions.
Mr. Speaker, in 2017, TCF National Bank was cited by CFPB and ultimately settled. It paid $30 million for its abuse of overdraft fees.
In 2020, TD Bank was sanctioned $123 million for, among other violations, deceptive practices related to debit card overdraft.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Chairman Hill, for bringing this important resolution of disapproval to the House floor, nullifying the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's disastrous overdraft rule.
Let me set the record straight, Mr. Speaker. This resolution of disapproval doesn't increase fees, as my friends on the other side of the aisle insinuate. In fact, what it does do is it invalidates a regulation that will take this critical lifeline away from many of my constituents.
Indeed, for many families across this country, living paycheck to paycheck, overdraft services are a critical safety net. Without this service, necessities would become harder to obtain. Overdraft services are not a luxury. They are a lifeline. For my friends on the other side of the aisle to use incendiary language like ``shameful,'' I submit what is shameful is to take away this lifeline from our constituents.
Consumers understand the costs associated with overdraft services, and they willingly opt in because they find value in the protection that it offers. They are not coerced. They make an informed decision, knowing that a small, predictable fee prevents far more severe consequences like a bounced check or late fees.
It is a convenience that allows consumers to avoid the embarrassment of being turned down at the point of sale. Unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues refuse to recognize this basic truth, choosing instead to label overdraft products as predatory.
Let me reiterate that point, Mr. Speaker. Consumers choose to use this service, and they opt into the service voluntarily.
The first option under the new rule forces financial institutions to treat overdrafts as extensions of credit. This change would severely limit access to the product, especially for those who need it most. Financial institutions would have to underwrite each overdraft transaction, evaluating a borrower's ability to pay a relatively small amount. This would be both impractical and inefficient.
The alternative proposed by the Bureau, a safe harbor charge cap of $5, would force many banks to exit this product altogether. Credit unions would also discontinue this service. This would price out the very consumers who rely on overdrafts the most.
They use the word ``predatory.'' Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what is predatory. What is predatory is taking away this product from the American people and pushing them into actual nonbank predatory lenders and usurious products.
As was mentioned earlier, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has already concluded that overdraft fee caps hamper, rather than foster, financial inclusion. The consequences of the rule have been studied, and it is evident that this cap would harm consumers by limiting their access to necessary financial services.
Finally, this idea that smaller banks and credit unions are unaffected by the rule is simply wrong. While institutions with less than $10 billion in assets are purportedly excluded from the rule, they will still be forced to deal with this cap just to stay competitive.
The truth is it is the big banks they are protecting. The big Wall Street banks can afford to go without these fees. It is the community banks in our neighborhoods and in our communities who can't afford to provide this product without the fees.
Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion, this is a real-life testimonial about the value of these overdraft protections from a community bank in my district:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, needless to say, the banker was tremendously humbled that she was able to help this mother out due to the overdraft. They are there in time of need.
Mr. Speaker, remember when the GOP promised to lower the cost of living? It really wasn't that long ago.
Today, we have a tax on cars. We have a tax on coffee. We have a tax on the eggs we import to fill the empty shelves. We have a tax of 125 percent on clothes, toys, and electronics.
What does this all add up to? It adds up to a tax of $4,600 a year on American families. While Trump shrugs at all those rising costs, he certainly wants us to know this. While all this was happening to American families, he wanted us to know that he won his Senior Club Championship golf tournament.
What are House Republicans doing?
Are they voting to cancel these taxes? No, they are carving them into stone, prohibiting us from revealing them, no matter how painful they get. Then they are pushing the costs even higher. Today, they are voting to raise overdraft fees.
After crashing the economy, eliminating jobs, and destroying people's retirement savings, they are making it more expensive to be short on money by $225 a year per family. Also, the banks can pocket more, which is their priority.
Later today, Republicans will be back on their tax plan, the one where they take deserving taxpayer dollars and give them to the billionaire class in the form of tax cuts for them.
By defunding Medicaid, the largest healthcare program in our country, by defunding food programs that feed 15 million children, by dismantling Social Security, firing veterans, closing and cutting public schools, and abandoning special needs children, the rich will get richer. That is who they work for.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work and vote for working people, and we will vote ``no'' on this budget.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman), who brings his entrepreneurship and State legislative practice. He is a former Congressman returning to the House Financial Services Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his hard work.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution disapproving of the rule submitted by the CFPB relating to overdraft lending very large financial institutions.
The CFPB's purpose is to implement and enforce consumer financial protection laws and ensure that consumers have access to financial services and products while ensuring fair, transparent, and competitive markets.
The overdraft lending rule issued by the CFPB instead harms consumers by setting government price caps on overdraft fees. Setting these caps and requiring large banks to lower their overdraft fees will force smaller and community banks to follow suit, resulting in less options for our constituents.
Overdraft fees are provided by banks for people who are caught in a bind. Hoosiers who need to make emergency payments should not be turned away at the register because this rule forced their bank to stop offering overdraft services. This government-created market established by the CFPB's overdraft lending rule ignores competition of banks and how they provide their services and pushes banks to restrict or exit this service.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, the former CFPB Director Chopra was not thinking about consumers when he implemented this midnight rule on his way out the door. I am proud that House Republicans and President Trump have the opportunity to right this egregious wrong implemented under the Biden administration.
These shouldn't be called fees. They should be called insurance for our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am having a hard time here trying to figure out what is going on in this country. We are here taking up all of this time talking about $5 and talking about trying to limit the fees that people are being charged. We are saying: Let's help our consumers. Let's help our constituents and stop having them become victims of these huge fees that have been charged by the banks.
They say that a lot of banks are not charging them, but still, they are fighting $5 that we are trying to limit these fees for. We said that all we are asking you to do is to let the people know exactly what you are doing about fees.
How much are you charging them?
I don't know what is going on. I don't know what is going on with them, and I don't know what is going on with the President of the United States of America.
He has put us in a chaotic situation. For example, I just got word that he has changed his mind about tariffs. We were all trying to convince this administration that they should not be raising the tariffs on all of these countries and the fact that they were even harming our relationship with our allies, but no. He placed tariffs on every country in the world, even for an island that had nothing but penguins on it.
So today what he said was: Oh, I changed my mind. I am going to raise the tariffs on China, but I think I will put a 90-day pause on all of the stuff that I did raising these tariffs for all these other countries just a few days ago.
When we think about the chaotic situation that we are in while we are here talking about $5, Mr. Speaker, you know that this President fired our nuclear experts from the National Nuclear Security Administration. So here we are without the protection of the experts to let us know what should be done to make sure that we don't have nuclear power destroying us all.
After firing them, they discovered they had made a big mistake. So guess what, Mr. Speaker? They called them back. However, they couldn't find them because they had erased their addresses. So they looked and looked and looked until they could beg them to come back.
Then there were thousands of employees at the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the bird flu outbreak that were fired. They were fired when we were facing another pandemic.
Mr. Speaker, they have forced seniors to go in person to apply for Social Security. I am so worried about our seniors and Social Security. He promised us that he would not cut Social Security, but what he did was he destroyed the infrastructure of Social Security. He fired people and shut off the telephones making them go in person to find their Social Security office, which they are closing all of them down. Now all of our Social Security and our seniors are at stake not knowing what is going to happen and not knowing how to get in touch with the Social Security personnel who work there to get these questions answered. I could go on and on about this Cabinet sharing war plans on Signal chats.
Do I have to tell you more about the chaos, Mr. Speaker, the disruption? Do I have to tell you more about the uncertainty and the situation that we find ourselves in, Mr. Speaker?
We are here trying to place a lid on these overdraft fees because people don't know whether or not they are going to have a job to pay anything let alone the overdraft fees. They are not going to have money to put food on the table, to make sure that the children
Mr. Speaker, for $5, we are here because they refuse to agree that there should be a cap on overdraft. If they want to charge more, we give them an out. They can do it in two ways. They can just tell the people that this is what they are doing, they want to increase for whatever reason, or they can calculate what they say their costs are for being able to provide overdraft fees and that they have to have a little more than $5. I don't know where we are going with all of this. I am totally disgusted, $5.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of my good friend from California if she has any other speakers. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time for the purpose of closing.
Mr. Speaker, when did it become unpopular to put more hands in the pockets of working families?
This resolution will cost American families $5 billion a year or about $250 per household in higher overdraft fees. No one in America wants to send a $250 check to the biggest banks every year.
To put this debate into perspective, Republicans spent a lot of time last Congress attacking a big bank capital rule called Basel III endgame. Republicans convened one dozen hearings on the topic and repeatedly referred to the 426 comments the public made on the proposal.
Mr. Speaker, do you know how many comments the CFPB received on the overdraft rule? They received more than 48,000 complaints, most of which strongly supported the rule which is more than 100 times the number of comments on the capital rule.
Consumers are just fed up with these types of junk fees, and the last thing they want is for Congress to raise them.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to join Senate bipartisan opposition to this resolution and vote ``no.'' Stand up for our constituents. Stand up for the people who depend on us every day to make sure they too can have a decent quality of life.
We are watching what Trump and Musk are doing, aligned with the billionaires who want more and more money and don't want to pay their taxes, and we are here fighting about $5.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends on this side of the aisle who have worked hard today, Mr. Speaker, to convince everybody in this body that this is a serious overreach by the CFPB in a Federal price mandate.
Instead of letting consumers choose their financial institution and choose which one has the lowest overdraft fees and the best consumer accounts, instead we have the Federal Government trying to tell people what the price can be. It is Federal price-fixing.
What the opposition has argued today is that these fees are hidden. They are not. Consumers opt into this product, Mr. Speaker. They know what the fee is because it is disclosed to them. It is required by Federal law today to disclose it under regulation DD.
This is about access for overdraft protection. One of my colleagues called it overdraft protection insurance so that they don't make a mistake and miss a mortgage payment, a rent payment, or a utility payment that causes higher costs, higher fees, and higher interest rates.
Two-thirds of consumers support overdraft protection products. Two- thirds of consumers think a reasonable fee is appropriate. Competition has brought down fees for years. In fact, many large banks don't even charge for overdraft protection.
The assertion that consumers complain about this all the time, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I don't find the evidence to that. Even the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's own database shows that less than 1 percent of consumer complaints over this past decade even reference this kind of a product.
This is not a junk fee. This is an overdraft protection that helps millions of families across the country manage their payments and their bills between paychecks. It should be competitive and it should be accessible. We should vote ``yes'' on this resolution so that we agree with the Federal Reserve of New York when they say that to cap this fee to do price intervention here is to deny credit and deny this product to the hardest working families in America.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 294, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.
This morning, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 313, providing for the House's consideration of the Senate amendment to H. Con. Res. 14.
This rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the Budget or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H. Con. Res. 14. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective designees.
Additionally, the rule tolls the day count for National Emergencies Act disapproval resolutions related to the emergency declared by President Trump on April 2, 2025, until September 30, 2025.
This budget resolution marks the next step in the reconciliation process to advance President Trump's America First agenda and deliver upon the American people's mandate from November.
We have certainly heard our fair share of fear-mongering and flat-out falsehoods from Democrats and their bedfellows in the mainstream media about what our budget resolution entails. Let me be clear: This resolution unlocks the path forward to deliver upon our commitments to the American people.
Over the next hour, I will bet you dollars to doughnuts, Mr. Speaker, that you will hear all manner of identity groups that Democrats will claim the budget resolution will hurt. You will hear them say that Republicans are abandoning the middle class and cutting benefits. None of that is even remotely true.
We heard some wild, wild conjecture in the Rules Committee this morning that Republicans would cut off your limbs and let you bleed to death if you had a cold. Notch that as another textbook example of Democrat fear-mongering that we have heard over the past few months. It is disappointing but far from surprising.
Here is the truth: There are no programmatic cuts or assumptions in the House-passed budget resolution. Not a single Democrat can back up his or her own claims that there are cuts to specific programs in the budget resolution. That is because, again, there are no programmatic cuts or assumptions.
Let's set the record straight about what this budget resolution actually accomplishes. It will provide funding for border security, provide for our national defense, and restore American energy independence.
On border security, the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies resulted in over 10 million encounters at the southern border from 2021 to this year, a 500 percent increase in illegal crossings, and over $115 billion in costs to State and local governments. This wide-open border allowed deadly fentanyl to flood into our communities, killing over 100,000 Americans. Even worse, known gang members and violent criminals from across the globe have walked right into our country.
Because of the Biden administration's abject failure, innocent Americans have been raped, assaulted, and murdered by illegal immigrants who never should have been here in the first place.
Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. We must and we will secure the border and put the safety of the American people first.
Next, the resolution enables us to protect tax relief. President Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provided critical relief to middle-class families and small businesses. Americans are still experiencing high prices because we are still recovering from Bidenomics.
Real wages under President Biden declined by more than 3 percent. Mortgage rates skyrocketed. Credit card delinquencies rose by over 50 percent. Bidenomics cost American families more than $11,000 every year for the last 4 years.
Mr. Speaker, these are facts. They are documented. This is so different from what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are doing in their fear-mongering when they are projecting what they think will happen if we get through our reconciliation.
This budget resolution also puts American energy dominance first. Under President Trump's first administration, America achieved energy freedom for the first time in 40 years. We were producing more than we consumed. Gas prices were low and families were thriving.
That all changed the day Joe Biden walked into the Oval Office. President Biden waged an all-out assault on American energy. He shut down production, blocked development on Federal lands, and recklessly drained our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, all the while begging foreign dictators for oil. The result was skyrocketing prices and American families clutching their wallets in fear.
Again, these are facts, Mr. Speaker, proven facts.
This budget resolution is our roadmap to take this country back. It secures the border, slashes wasteful spending, delivers tax relief for working families, and begins to rebuild the economy that the Biden- Harris administration shattered.
It is time to put America first again, and the budget resolution is how we get it done. Once adopted, our committees and the entire House will begin detailed work to achieve these important goals for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a lousy budget. It is a budget that will hurt working families. It is a budget that will especially hurt families who are struggling in poverty.
Republicans have succeeded in putting together a Marie Antoinette budget, helping the richest of the rich while hurting the poorest of the poor. Let them eat cake. That is the Republican motto.
I have never seen such cruelty contained in a budget in all my years here. This budget would force the biggest cut to Medicaid in American history.
The idea and the audacity of somehow pretending like it isn't going to hurt people is just insane. It is simply not possible mathematically to cut Medicaid by almost a trillion dollars and not hurt people.
By the way, for the record, that is not fear-mongering. It is what is in the text of this resolution.
I just want to say that this budget directs the Committee on Energy and Commerce to come up with at least $880 billion in cuts within their jurisdiction. Republicans want to be able to claim that there is no way to know at this point in the process where those cuts will come from, and they are saying that they are not going to cut any benefits in Medicaid or Medicare.
Guess what, Mr. Speaker. If you don't cut Medicaid, if you don't cut Medicare or CHIP, there is only $381 billion left to cut in E&C's jurisdiction. Even if you cut literally every single other dollar, you are still at least $500 billion short, half a trillion dollars short.
I guess I understand why President Trump suggests that you all close your eyes before voting on this steaming pile of Medicaid cuts.
I would also say it is not mathematically possible to tell the Agriculture Committee to cut $230 billion without cutting SNAP benefits. You just can't do it. You have to kick people off of food assistance if this budget passes. That means children, seniors, and Americans with disabilities are cut off.
In my opinion, that is the reality that Republicans are trying to hide from the American people.
We had a hearing in the Agriculture Committee yesterday where Republicans were bragging about how they wanted to put more hurdles in place for people to be eligible for SNAP. The majority of people on SNAP are children, are senior citizens, are people who are disabled. We don't expect them to work, unless you want to repeal the child labor laws, unless you want to send grandma back to the factory. That is the overwhelming majority of people who are on the program.
Of those who are able-bodied and expected to work, the majority of them work. The majority of them work. That is the program Republicans want to target? Give me a break.
I will go right through the list.
We can debate waste, fraud, and abuse all day. The money that DOGE has supposedly found in waste, even if you believe that number, is totally offset by the tax breaks for billionaires in this resolution. I mean, with all the chaos in our economy right now, does anybody really believe that we have to help out billionaires, that they are the ones who are hurting, not average working families but billionaires?
We have billionaires in this country who pay an effective tax rate that is lower than the effective tax rate for teachers, police officers, and firefighters.
What the hell is wrong with this place? I mean, the priorities here are all screwed up. Let's have a debate about our values and our choices, but, please, let's not pretend like this budget isn't going to hurt people.
Let's at least have an intellectually honest conversation and admit what this is about. Just like the devastating DOGE cuts to NIH and CDC, they are going to hurt people, just like Trump's tariffs are hurting people.
By the way, on tariffs, if I may, Republicans are once again rigging the rules to protect Donald Trump and hide from accountability.
Republicans know his tariffs are economic poison and know voters hate them, but House Republicans are too cowardly to go on record. The majority is trying to sneak around with a procedural gimmick in this rule to block a vote on the tariffs instead of facing the truth.
Mr. Speaker, to be clear, a vote for today's rule is a vote for Trump's disastrous trade war, period. There is no hiding from it.
Mr. Speaker, I know that Trump just announced on social media, of all ways, that he is partially backing down and putting a temporary pause on some of the tariffs he announced last week.
Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether it is idiocy or incompetence, maybe both, but that means that Trump tanked the market nearly 20 percent and put the entire American economy on the line so that countries would give him a phone call? Is that what this is all about? Give me a damned break.
Rightwing pundits are going to act like pausing the tariffs was some kind of stroke of genius, that recouping only one-third of our market losses is somehow a brilliant move. Now, I wasn't very good in arithmetic, but that doesn't sound like a brilliant move to me. That sounds like a stupid move.
First, let me remind my colleagues across the aisle that this is just a pause.
Second, 10 percent tariffs across the board are still in place, plus the increased Chinese tariffs.
Third, all of this chaos is horrible for the economy. Small businesses cannot plan or operate under this level of uncertainty.
What big business would want to invest in any new manufacturing if there is no telling what policy is in place tomorrow? How can our trading partners believe what we say when we are changing policy every 3 days? The swinging back and forth is making Americans worse off for no apparent reason.
Maybe Republicans think that some people need to be hurt in order to fix our country. I love it when Trump puts up all of these billionaires to tell working families: You have to just deal with the pain. It is no big deal. You should sacrifice. These are billionaires lecturing hardworking, middle-class Americans.
If Republicans at least admitted what the impact of these tariffs really were on average working families, we could have an intellectually honest conversation about what this budget and Trump's tariffs do. Yet, we can't because that would force the other side to acknowledge the truth.
The truth is that this budget was written by the rich, for the rich, to help the rich get richer. That is what this is: a massive transfer of wealth from those at the bottom to those at the top. It is Robin Hood in reverse, and the American people will pay the price for the Republicans' billionaire-first budget.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I warned everybody that this is what we were going to hear. We were going to hear these outrageous claims that are simply not true.
The fact is that the rhetoric coming from the other side has reached an appalling level. We have heard the scare tactics for weeks now, but it has taken a dark turn, Mr. Speaker, that is literally instilling fear into the hearts of blameless, everyday Americans.
We heard in the Committee on Rules this morning of how Democrats brought people to tears in meetings by telling them lies about what was in our budget resolutions. Mr. Speaker, that is shameful. That is shameful.
We can have disagreements about policy decisions. We can have disagreements about the effects of mismanagement of tax-dollar funds, for example, or what amount of tax relief is appropriate. Yet, the Democrats have now impugned Republican motivations and put blood on our hands.
A Democrat in the Committee on Rules this morning stated that: Republicans would cut off your limbs and let you bleed to death, in the context relating to a patient asking for help with a cold.
It was an absolutely disgusting remark that has no place in this debate. Is this what Leader Jeffries wants to come to the floor to state, that we are cutting the limbs off of people to watch them bleed out?
Does Leader Jeffries want to stoke fear in this way and terrorize Americans?
Instead of recognizing the sickening, repulsive rhetoric for what it is, this Member doubled down and posted it on her social media accounts, instilling fear in and terrorizing those people who she claims to care for.
Mr. Speaker, Democrats are injecting fear into the lives of countless Americans, stoking their anxieties, disinforming them, dragging them into the muck of the worst of political discourse, and for what? For what?
Mr. Speaker, it is for political gain. It is sickening.
Let's be clear. This is a budget resolution. It doesn't have a shred of force of law outside internal procedures in this body. Yet, the Democrats would make us believe that we are targeting people.
There isn't any targeting. There aren't any assumptions about programs. Just read the resolution. It is a framework, and my colleagues won't find any of what the Democrats are discussing here today. Those things are not here.
With respect to what Republicans have been articulating outside of this resolution, we are aiming to ensure that Medicaid is targeted to the most vulnerable.
Mr. Speaker, we need to beef up Medicaid that is going to the most vulnerable. We want to rid the program of waste, fraud, and abuse that is robbing the American public of tax dollars that could better care for the sick.
Mr. Speaker, we truly care for those people, which is why we are trying to root out waste, fraud, and abuse which has not been acknowledged at all by our colleagues.
We want to create better patient outcomes through innovation. We want to rightsize State implementation so the truly needy are getting relief, and we want to focus assistance to those who are truly on the margins.
As Shakespeare said: ``What's past is prologue.'' The Democrats continue their campaigns of lies just as the minority has in the past. My Democratic colleagues famously got four Pinocchios from The Washington Post, hardly a conservative enclave, for their clearly false facts about the Trump tax cuts.
Democrats said they were targeted toward the rich and corporations that pay no taxes, but we factually know that the share of taxes paid by the top 1 percent of earners actually reached new heights, Mr. Speaker, after President Trump's tax cuts went into effect. The outcomes got more progressive.
Mr. Speaker, more recently, it has been publicly reported that ads placed by Democratic-aligned groups had to be taken down because of the same inaccuracies. What was their message?
Their message was that Republicans voted to cut Medicaid and give tax cuts to billionaires. That sounds exactly like what we are hearing on the floor. It wouldn't be able to be run on a billboard. It doesn't pass the simple test of scrutiny.
Mr. Speaker, the American public deserves better. Let's deal with facts, and let's not scare the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman said that we need to deal with facts. I agree.
Yet, we also need to deal with math. I understand that President Trump told the gentlewoman and other Republicans ``to close your eyes'' and vote for this budget. That is a direct quote, by the way.
Did he tell Republicans to hide their calculator, too?
I just went through my concerns about the cuts in Medicaid. This budget actually has instructions to the Committee on Energy and Commerce to cut $880 billion at a minimum. They were instructed to find $880 billion at a minimum in savings.
There is no way to do that when doing the math without cutting Medicaid. That is just a fact. The math is undefeated here.
I am sorry that my friends don't want to appear like Republicans are insensitive to the plight of those who are struggling in the lower income brackets and who need Medicaid and for whom it is a lifeline. It is just the truth. There is no way. Again, do the arithmetic. Do the math. There is no way to get those cuts without going into Medicaid. That is going to hurt people.
Mr. Speaker, again, I tried in the Committee on Rules to have an amendment saying that we won't give tax cuts to people who have a net worth of over a billion dollars. That was rejected on a party-line vote.
We want to give more benefits to people at the top, but the way we are going to do it is we are going to cut people's healthcare benefits who are on Medicaid. By the way, Medicaid is also the program that helps provide long-term care for a lot of middle-income families in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the notion that we can make all these cuts and don't worry, be happy, come on. Come on. People can figure this out. The math is undefeated.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Magaziner).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump's tariffs are the biggest tax increase on the middle class in this country in generations. Even with today's so- called pause announcement, he is still putting a 10 percent tax on food, on energy, and on essentials that Americans need, while keeping up with the high cost of living.
The number one thing that I hear in my district and that I know everybody hears in their districts is the cost of living is too high.
Why in the world is this President increasing the cost of living for millions of middle-class Americans?
At the same time, the stock market has tanked. Even after today's so- called pause, which is not a pause because it is still a 10 percent tax--the S&P is down 10 percent since Trump took office, and trillions of dollars of people's retirement savings are wiped out.
Mr. Speaker, what are our Republican colleagues doing to respond to this insanity? The majority is trying to pass a rule that says that Congress cannot overturn these tariffs even though the Constitution gives Congress and not the President the sole authority to levy tariffs.
Why are my Republican colleagues even bothering to show up to work?
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are just giving the executive branch all of the powers that the Constitution had originally given to the Congress.
Why are Republicans even bothering to show up if my Republican colleagues are just going to give all of our constitutional authority to the executive to levy these taxes on middle-class Americans who can't afford it?
I will say why Republicans are still showing up. As Mr. McGovern said, this rule also includes the next step in a budget plan that would cut taxes for billionaires at the same time that it cuts healthcare for working people. The math doesn't lie. This budget plan requires $880 billion of cuts under the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, the majority could cut literally every program under the Committee on Energy and Commerce except for Medicare and Medicaid and only get to $200 billion. Where does the other $600 billion-plus come from?
It can only come from kicking people off of their health insurance so that Elon Musk and the billionaires can get another tax cut that they don't need. It is unconscionable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am not very happy about the fact that I am a good predictor of what the Democrats were going to say on the floor today, that the minority was going to lie about what is in this budget resolution. I expect every single one of them to come down here and do that. I predicted it, Mr. Speaker. Here it is, coming true.
Let me talk a little bit about the tariffs. The tariffs announced by President Trump on April 2, 2025, are a response to our economy that will strengthen the international economic position of the United States and protect American workers.
Access to the American economy is a privilege, and these tariffs are a starting point to bring other nations to the negotiating table. They are intended to reduce reciprocal tariffs and achieve global free trade, decouple developing countries from competitive nations like China, or for national security purposes.
As we are seeing, President Trump and America are winning. Over 75 countries have reached out to representatives of the United States to negotiate a solution on the subjects being discussed relative to trade: trade barriers, tariffs, currency manipulation, and nonmonetary tariffs. These will mean wins for the American worker.
President Trump is taking decisive action, pausing tariffs for 90 days, except for China, as nations have come to the table.
As I have made clear multiple times now, when it comes to the pause on the National Emergencies Act disapproval resolutions, this is a tool utilized by both majorities, and my Democrat colleagues had no qualms with supporting it in their last majority on a much broader and open- ended scale as it related to COVID.
This is why delaying the NEA disapproval resolution is prudent. President Trump must be given the leeway to negotiate on a global scale parameters that will make good on his promises of securing the border, protecting our communities, and leveling the global playing field to ensure fair trade for American producers.
Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman essentially, once again, called me a liar, so I am going to be a little less polite than normal and say that the gentlewoman doesn't understand basic math. I am not going to waste my breath to try to explain it to her again, but math doesn't lie. It is undefeated.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. I will offer an amendment. My amendment will simply strike section 2 of the rule. That section, tucked in the rule by Republicans this morning, prevents the House from voting on Trump's disastrous worldwide tariffs, the ones destroying the economy and raising prices on regular Americans.
Just before I came down here, I guess Trump said on social media that he is partially pausing some of the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days. Oh, cool, a 90-day pause. That is the certainty that the business community is looking for. How is any company supposed to forecast for their future, build a plant, and hire workers if they have no idea what the hell this President is going to do in his next tweet?
We went from the President saying on social media today ``be cool'' to then saying ``just kidding.'' We have a 90-day pause in a matter of hours. I have whiplash. I need a neck brace to be able to get through all of this.
Also, the President announced that he is hiking the tariffs on China to 125
What about the EU? They retaliated with tariffs against us this morning, too. Are we going to treat them like China and punch back as the White House Press Secretary says that we are doing? I guess we don't have any clarity on that question.
Here is the worst part, Mr. Speaker. The Congress could stop this madness and provide the certainty that is needed by voting on these tariffs, but it seems like Republicans are fighting tooth and nail not to stop the insanity but to keep Congress from having a say about these tariffs, to hide from doing their jobs.
With this provision hidden in the rule, they are stopping the entire House from bringing up legislation to put an end to these tariffs, not pause them, end them, legislation which, under the law, any Member should be able to bring to the floor 14 days from now.
Let's set aside that the stock markets are in chaos and having volatile swings. Let's set aside that the business community--you know, where people work--don't know where to buy supplies, where to build plants, where to hire, or anything else with any certainty now. These tariffs affect the cost of everything: the food at the grocery store, electronics, the goods that are in most demand by our constituents. We are in a trade war not just with China but with our own allies and friends.
These tariffs are harmful and they will lead to a recession, one caused not by any outside calamitous event, but by the ego of one man: Donald Trump. We could stop this uncertainty. We could stop this chaos, but Republicans are literally stopping us and themselves from even having a vote on these tariffs.
I say to my Republican colleagues, stop hiding. Open your eyes despite the President telling you to close them. Represent your constituents, the people who elected you and the ones who are getting hurt by these tariffs and strike this provision blocking a vote on tariffs.
If you don't adopt my amendment, then a ``yes'' vote on this rule is a ``yes'' vote for Trump's tariffs. A ``yes'' vote is for more chaos and uncertainty in the market. With a ``yes'' vote, you will own the pain that comes with these tariffs, the chaos and the uncertainty, and you will have no one to blame but yourselves.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in 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?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, to discuss our proposal.
Mr. Speaker, President Trump changes his tariff policy more than most people change their socks. One day he is picking fights with Canada and Mexico, our friends, and the next day he is launching a global trade war. Today, he is pausing tariffs on some countries while also increasing them on China. What our farmers, ranchers, and producers need is certainty.
I don't know how my Republican colleagues can say that any of this is all according to plan with a straight face.
There is no plan. There is no art of the deal. Trump's reckless tariffs are costing hardworking Americans $4,600 a year, hurting small businesses, and absolutely tanking retirement savings.
Farmers are taking losses on days they go to market only to turn around and see conditions improve a few hours later because of a tweet from the President.
How is that strategic?
Trump alienated our trade partners and destroyed our credibility as a country that foreign governments can do business with. House Republicans are acting as his rubberstamp by banning the House from taking action to stop it.
We need an adult in the room, and I cannot find a single one on the other side of the aisle. This President's tantrums are causing economic global panic. The House must be able to debate and vote on these tariffs. You have the same farmers I do coming through your offices right now to tell you it is not just the tariffs; it is the uncertainty of the tariffs and the disappearing markets. Doing nothing allows American families to be crushed by these reckless tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most momentous votes of this Congress. The President unilaterally imposed one of the largest tax increases in American history. People's retirement accounts are now in shambles. We all know these tariffs are a disaster, and that is why Republicans are now trying to block a vote on whether to end these tariffs so they don't have to go on the record. It is why a few minutes before this speech, President Trump blinked, announcing a brief pause but we will be doing the same dance again in a couple of months.
It is time to simply end the chaos. That is why I introduced a resolution to end these tariffs, but Speaker Johnson and the majority don't want to go on record. They are trying to dodge a vote. But guess what. You can run, but you can't hide from the American people.
Speaker Johnson, again, ``is using Rules Committee Resolutions, consummated by majority vote of the whole House, to declare that `a day is not a day' in order to avoid the U.S. law that requires Congress to vote.''
By the way, those aren't my words. That is a tweet from a Republican House Member who just simply told the truth.
Let me be clear: A vote for this rule is a vote for tariffs. It is a vote for raising the costs on everyday Americans.
Now, many Republicans I have worked with over the years can attest that this should not be a partisan vote. I care about bipartisanship. We should be bipartisan. That is why, in this Congress, I introduced an AUMF repeal bill with Representative Roy. That is why this week, I co- led a bill to claw back tariff powers from the executive with Representative Bacon. That is why I did many bipartisan bills with Representative McCaul in the Foreign Affairs Committee.
The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans who have complained about executive overreach and rules distortions for years, now is the chance to put their money where their mouth is. This is the time. The American people will hold them accountable if they don't.
Do you support the largest peacetime tax increase on American families? Do you support raising the cost of groceries for them? If you do not and you want to end America's largest economic self-sabotage ever, then vote against this rule and stand up for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentlewoman whether she has any Republicans that want to come down here and defend these tariffs and the tax hikes on average people? Does she have any other speakers?
Mr. Speaker, I do have some other Members who wanted to come down and speak on the rule. They are tied up right now. If the gentleman is prepared to close, then I am prepared to close.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this is a terrible, horrible rule. Voting in support of this rule means voting to protect Trump's reckless tariffs. Don't get me started about this budget resolution. It is not just Democrats who think this budget resolution is terrible; it is Republicans.
Mr. Norman, a member of the Rules Committee says: ``The Senate version is dead on arrival.''
Mr. Roy, a member of the Rules Committee says: ``Adopting a policy baseline does not change basic math.''
Mr. Ogles says: ``The Senate budget bill is really offensive.''
Don't worry. Donald Trump is on top of things. He says: ``Close your eyes and vote for it.'' I would just add to that: Close your eyes, cover your ears, and hide your calculators. That is what Trump wants you to do.
Pass this quickly and move on so he doesn't get blamed for how much it is going to screw people.
My answer to that is: We are going to fight back. If you support this budget, we simply do not share the same values. I believe it is fundamentally wrong to gut Medicaid. I don't want to kick moms and dads and kids off their long-term healthcare. I think it is rotten to kick kids and Americans with disabilities and veterans off of food assistance. I think it is evil to give tax cuts to billionaires while middle America struggles to get ahead.
I think that those are awful, mean, nasty things to do. We are the richest country on Earth. Republicans don't have to hurt poor people to help the rich. They are deciding to do that. They are deciding to steal from the poor. They are making a conscious decision to betray their constituents and sell out their best interests to MAGA billionaires.
At the end of the day, no matter what my Republican friends say, because of this budget, more kids will go without food. More kids will be malnourished. Because of this budget, parents and grandparents will have to sell their houses to afford medical care. Because of this budget, more consumers will get ripped off. Because of this budget, our air and water will have more toxic chemicals. That is the truth. That is the reality.
Most people in this country feel like the economy doesn't work for them, and it hasn't for a long time. Do you know why? It is because of budgets like this which were written for billionaires and not for regular people. I think plain and simple, that is wrong.
I reject this budget. I reject it not just mathematically, but I reject it morally. I am reminded here of the Book of Matthew, where Jesus says: ``Truly I tell you, whatever you did to the least of these, you did to me.''
This budget steals from those with the least. Let me repeat that. This budget steals from those with the least. It is all so the rich can get richer. I just find that awful. I find that awful. We don't share the same values if you embrace this budget.
Years from now, Mr. Speaker, when we are all gone, we won't be judged by the size of our bank accounts. We won't be judged by how many tax breaks we gave to billionaires. We will be judged by our decency. We will be judged by our compassion. We will be judged by our kindness, and, yes, we will be judged by our work to build a society where everybody has a chance and nobody is left behind.
This is an immoral budget, and I want the American people to know I do not share these values. Democrats do not share these values. I reject this budget. Democrats reject this budget.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear our friends say they don't share the values of trying to save hardworking Americans' money from waste, fraud, and abuse, which are rampant in the Federal Government.
The American people know that, Mr. Speaker. They know that in their hearts and in their minds. They understand it. They hear about it every day.
It is curious to me that our Democratic colleagues do not want to make Medicaid more effective, that they don't want to help the people on Medicaid get better healthcare. How sad, Mr. Speaker, that that is the case.
Mr. Speaker, this budget does not steal from the least of these. It does not. What it does do is everything it can to stop fraudsters, to stop bureaucratic waste, and to stop bad things from happening to those least because those in the government are not serving them well.
Let's talk about these predictions. I started out by saying you are going to hear these horror stories. They said we are going to cut people's limbs off and watch them bleed to death.
Let's look at the predictions that were made when President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act around Christmas 2017. Then- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi infamously predicted Armageddon for America--fear-mongering, plain and simple. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act led to historic growth and economic gains in this country.
Larry Summers, a well-known Democrat, described progrowth forecasts as ``tooth fairies'' and predicted a long recession. That is fear- mongering. We got the opposite, a historic economic expansion under President Trump. Senator Chuck Schumer earned a ``mostly false'' rating for claiming companies were laying off workers due to tax reform. That is fear-mongering again.
Yesterday, I had in my office some businesspeople, and they talked about what they did when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed. They gave all of their employees a raise. We know about that, Mr. Speaker, those of us who were around. We saw that. There was lots of news about that because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
As a result of that bill, we got historic reshoring and more jobs, as promised by President Trump.
Then-Senator Harris, later Vice President Harris, claimed there would be a middle-class tax hike because average tax refunds were slightly down as tax season began. One newspaper deemed her claim ``misleading'' and--surprise, surprise--``nonsensical.'' History now reveals it to be false, and I would call it fear-mongering, the same we have been hearing on the floor today.
In perhaps one of the greatest reveals, liberal Vox writer Matthew Yglesias, after admitting that facts show ``a clear majority got a tax cut,'' praised other liberals who ``did a really good job of convincing people that Trump raised their taxes.'' Fear-mongering revealed.
Mr. Speaker, the fear-mongering needs to end, and the business of this House needs to continue. Again, despite what our colleagues on the left may claim, the American people know the truth. The Biden-Harris administration was a relentless assault on our economy, our national security, and our energy independence.
Today in Rules, one of our colleagues said they are always left to clean up Republicans' mess. No. It is the Republicans who have to clean up the Democrats' mess.
Under the Biden-Harris administration, they waged war on American energy, opened our borders to chaos, and drove inflation through the roof, all while families struggled to keep up.
That is exactly why Americans were fired up at the ballot box last November. The American people had enough of Democratic dysfunction.
This budget resolution is the beginning of delivering on President Trump's America First agenda. We are cutting waste, restoring our economy, delivering relief to working families, securing the border, and unleashing American energy like never before.
This is more than a budget. It is a blueprint to take our country back, Mr. Speaker. We are done playing defense. It is time to lead, fight, and win, all for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 313 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
Providing for Consideration of Senate Amendment to H. CON. RES. 14, Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2025.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on the resolution (H. Res. 313) providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 14) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2025 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2026 through 2034, on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous question.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, nays 212, not voting 3, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. BEYER changed his 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.
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"
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage 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'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, nays 211, not voting 3, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Disapproving the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection Relating to "Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions"
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage 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'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, nays 211, not voting 5, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 313, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 14) establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2025 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2026 through 2034, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the concurrent resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the Senate amendment.
Senate amendment: Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the motion.
The text of the motion is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 313, the motion shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Boyle) each will control 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on Senate amendment to H. Con. Res. 14.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in the most historic election of our lifetime, Americans resoundingly elected President Trump and a Republican-led Congress to reverse course on the failed policies and the string of self-inflicted disasters of the past 4 years.
Unbridled spending and bad economic policies have weakened our economy, created a cost-of-living disaster for working families, and pushed our Nation ever closer to the precipice of the sovereign debt crisis.
Today, our national debt is at wartime levels, Mr. Speaker. Our deficit is $2 trillion more than our annual appropriations budget. Half of that is interest. Interest on the debt is greater than we spend, Mr. Speaker, on all of Defense and, respectively, it is more than we spend on all of Medicare services to our seniors.
It is completely and utterly unsustainable. We are at a critical inflection point. We have a generational opportunity to rein in wasteful spending, reignite growth, and put our Nation on a responsible and sustainable path.
Members of this Chamber did just that. The Republicans of the House fashioned a fiscal framework that was responsible, that put pro-growth policies in place to incent growth and job creation, move our country forward, strengthen our economic base, which is our power base that gives us our global leadership influence.
We also give tools and resources to our Commander in Chief to provide for a common defense. We bend the curve on mandatory spending, which is 75 percent of the budget, 90 percent of the increase in spending, and it is the spending that is bankrupting the United States of America.
For the next hour, the Democrats will have rhetorical arguments that are tired, old, and completely false. They will prey on the fears of our most vulnerable Americans and they will try to intimidate my Republican colleagues into inaction.
They will try to convince our seniors and those families and individuals who struggle that we will somehow steal their safety net or cut their program, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Mr. Speaker, my Democrat colleagues in the Rules Committee said, listen, if you are just talking about cutting waste, you know we are there. You know we will meet you half way. We want to ensure that the taxpayer dollars are stewarded, and yet they take out their baseball bat when we talk about the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse, and they politicize it.
However, when they had full control of the House and Senate and the White House, they jammed through their Inflation Reduction Act or the American Rescue Plan, there wasn't a jot or tittle, not a single measure of fiscal control or a measure of rooting out waste and fraud, but they say they are with us.
Mr. Speaker, instead, there was $2 trillion in wasted tax dollars opening up healthcare and welfare to illegals, waived work requirements to able-bodied Americans, trapping more people in dependence on the government. Of course, they also had bailouts for student loans and expansion of the IRS by $80 billion, mandating electric vehicles for every American, tax breaks for green energy corporations, and the list goes on and on.
They will also dust off an old playbook where they say that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was simply a tax cut for the rich.
Just to dispel that with a few points, The Washington Post gave four Pinocchios to their claim that it went to the rich and to the corporations. Mr. Speaker, $3 out of $4 went to individuals, and the lower 10 percent of our income brackets received the highest tax break. The top 1 percent actually had to pay a higher share of taxes.
In addition, we saw 25-year wage increases for American families with a median household income able to put $5,000 back into their pockets and 6 million people were raised out of poverty, so all boats rose on the tide of prosperity.
Yet, my Democrat colleagues are trying to stop us from simply extending the tax relief to our small businesses and tax breaks to our families after a 21 percent inflation tax that they suffered through for the last few years.
If they were successful in opposing the extension of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, an average American will have a tax hike of 22 percent, $1,700 would be the extra expense for families of four, 26 million small businesses would lose their comparable tax break through the 20 percent 199A deduction, child tax credit would be cut in half for 40 million families, the standard deduction for 91 percent of all Americans would be cut in half.
Mr. Speaker, as we unlock the reconciliation process, I am encouraging my colleagues to hold fast to the principles established in the House's budget resolution. If we do that, we will preserve the blessings of liberty and prosperity for our children and grandchildren for generations to come. If we don't, if we shrink back in this monumental moment and this historic opportunity, then we will be the first generation of Americans who have left our country worse than we found it.
If we are to usher in that golden age of America that President Trump is fond of talking about, we must advance a budget resolution bill that doesn't just include tax cuts or deregulation or good energy policies. All that is good, but also, admittedly, the most difficult part but the most necessary, is reining in the runaway spending that is driving the greatest country in human history off of a fiscal cliff.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reverse the curse, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say it is like deja vu all over again because we were on the House floor about a month ago to have a debate about the House Republican budget reconciliation resolution, which included trillions of dollars in big giveaways that mostly benefit the top 1 percent, paid for, in part, by the biggest Medicaid cuts in American history, combined with trillions of dollars in new debt.
Here we are again a month later and after the Senate Republicans made their changes, we have even more in tax-cut giveaways. Instead of $4.5 trillion, it is now $7 trillion, most of which one penny doesn't even pay for it, except, again, for cuts to Medicaid, as well as cuts to other programs.
Now, there is a little bit of confusion here on a couple aspects, and I will quickly address them.
First, on tax cuts, there is no question that there will not be a tax increase on working Americans. There is widespread agreement, on both sides of the aisle, when it comes to tax cuts on those making under a million dollars a year.
In fact, in the Rules Committee a few weeks ago, a Democratic Member offered an amendment to say we agree.
Every Democratic Member voted in favor of that amendment that would make clear we would be extending the tax cuts for everyone who makes up to $1 million. That is a massive amount of money. Every Democrat voted for it. Every Republican voted against it.
Don't be confused and don't be scared by this scare tactic. If you are a middle-class American, if you are in the 99 percent, you will not see your taxes go up next year. There is no question about that. What is at issue is the tax cuts for multimillionaires, billionaires, and big corporations.
Now, there is another part that has gotten confused or obscured, and that is with respect to the Medicaid cuts. As CBO confirmed in a letter they sent to Mr. Pallone and to me, there is no question that this piece of legislation before us calls for hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid cuts, the largest in American history.
There are some on the other side who have said the word ``Medicaid'' technically doesn't exist in the bill, therefore, these cuts don't exist. Give me a break.
The instruction in this piece of legislation directs the Energy and Commerce Committee to identify at least $880 billion of cuts in those programs where they have jurisdiction.
Guess what. Mr. Speaker, 93 percent of their jurisdiction is Medicare and Medicaid. You can literally cut everything else that they have jurisdiction over and that only gets you about $380 billion, so at least $500 billion, by definition, in order to follow and carry out these instructions, have to come from Medicaid.
Now, finally, because I know we have a lot of speakers on this side, there is something additional in this new version of the reconciliation resolution. It is called current policy baseline. It is a fraud, and to House Republicans' credit, actually, in their proposal, they didn't rely on this fraud.
Current policy baseline, with a straight face, wants you to believe that permanent extension of the tax cuts won't cost one dime. This would establish a dangerous new precedent here.
For 51 years, we have operated under the Budget and Impoundment Control Act. For 51 years, we have had the Congressional Budget Office and we have had these rules, as imperfect as they may be, that we have to follow, that things have to be paid for within a 10-year window.
Current policy baseline means that rule goes out the window. If we think that, in establishing this new precedent, this will be the only time it is ever used, that is crazy. If we think that we have a national debt issue right now, which we both agree on, it will get far, far worse if the new standard becomes this phony fraud of current policy baseline.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the rest of the debate, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker), a dear friend from the Keystone State and vice chair of the Budget Committee.
I would first say it has been a great pleasure of mine to work with the chairman over the past few months. He has done an incredible job leading the Budget Committee and leading our Conference to a resolution passed out of the House that not only extended the tax cuts but secured the border. It unleashes American energy. It funds our military. All the priorities, all the mandates that the American people have given us and have given the President in this past election, it makes good on.
I will say first that it is, I think, important to every Member of the Republican Conference in the House and, I believe, every Republican Member in the Senate, as well, to extend those tax cuts, drive an economy that is working for Americans, and drive additional growth in the economy.
That is what came out of the House, and so I was very disappointed to see very different instructions to the Senate that I think are not serious.
I believe that we have to do these tax cuts. What I think is also important to every Member of the House--we know the fiscal trajectory that we are on, and we know this won't end well if we don't restrain our runaway spending. I think this is our opportunity to do it.
The $4 billion floor in spending savings in that Senate resolution just simply is not acceptable. There are those who argue that we will be working on this and will still come up with a good resolution, but to me, it is important we have the guardrails in the initial resolution.
I think there is a reason for the initial resolution. It is to set up the framework for what this reconciliation will look like.
Unfortunately, today--unusual for me--I will not be able to support this resolution on the floor. I will be voting ``no'' on this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, again, with what I started with, it is very important we get this resolution done. There is a better path forward. We have an amendment that could be passed in this resolution that would satisfy where the Senate is, where the House is. As I said, I can't vote for this resolution as it is, but there is a pathway forward here that is very important.
Mr. Speaker, let me also thank the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Representative Boyle, who is doing a tremendous job leading House Democrats on the Budget Committee.
Yesterday, I urged the Speaker to join me on the House floor to debate this reckless budget one-on-one so we would have an opportunity to fully air, in a transparent way before the American people, Democratic values and Republican values, the Democratic perspective on this budget and the Republican perspective.
I am on the House floor right now. I am ready to debate one-on-one, prepared to yield to the Speaker for colloquy at any time so we can discuss the Democratic vision for building an affordable economy that lowers costs and makes life better for the American people and the Republican budget proposal that would enact the largest Medicaid cut in American history in order to pass massive tax breaks for Republicans' billionaire donors like Elon Musk.
Mr. Speaker, I am ready to yield. I am ready to debate one-on-one on this House floor. I promise not to rebuke him in the name of Jesus.
Here in America, we were told by Donald Trump and House Republicans, that they were going to lower the high cost of living for everyday Americans. In fact, we were told that Republicans were going to do it on day one, and it hasn't happened.
President Trump and House Republicans told us that they were going to deliver the golden age of America. Over the last several months, we haven't witnessed the golden age of America. We have witnessed a rotten age.
They are crashing the economy in real time, driving us toward a Republican recession that is going to hurt children, hurt families, hurt seniors, hurt everyday Americans, hurt veterans, and hurt people across the land.
Republicans haven't done anything to address the high cost of living. As Democrats, we recognize that America is too expensive. The cost of living in this great country is far too high. Housing costs are too high. Grocery costs are too high. Insurance costs are too high. Utility costs are too high. Childcare costs are too high. America is too expensive. We should be working to lower the high cost of living.
Far too many people in this country can't get ahead, and they can barely get by, struggling to make ends meet, living paycheck to paycheck. We should be acting decisively to address the high cost of living.
President Trump promised costs would go down on day one. Costs aren't going down. They are going up. Inflation is going up. Consumer confidence is coming down.
These reckless policies, including the Trump tariffs, are driving us toward a
I stand here today in strong opposition to this reckless Republican budget. It is a cruel budget. It is a budget that will have catastrophic consequences on everyday Americans.
It is an assault on the economy. It is an assault on Medicaid, an assault on healthcare, and an assault on nutritional assistance to children and families. It is an assault on older Americans and an assault on hospitals, nursing homes, and community health centers. It is an assault on veterans. That is why we reject it, because we are going to stand on the side of the American people.
Now, there are so many different problems with this budget resolution, but let's begin with the fact that Republicans are setting in motion the largest Medicaid cut in American history. That is going to hurt people all across this country. In small-town America, in urban America, in rural America, in the heartland of America, in Appalachia, all across this country, people will be hurt.
Healthcare will be taken away from children, pregnant women, everyday Americans with disabilities, older Americans, people in nursing homes, and people who are receiving long-term care. Nursing homes will close. That will impact everybody in a given community. Hospitals will shut down in rural America and small-town America all across America. The largest Medicaid cut in American history is completely and totally unacceptable.
In the same period of time, targeting nutritional assistance for children, infants, women, families, veterans, and older Americans, literally taking food out of the mouths of babies in the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, this is why we say it is a cruel budget. It is a callous budget. It is a budget that will have catastrophic consequences.
Veterans will be hurt, people who have served this country admirably. They stood up for us. We should always stand up for them, not target them, as will be the case in this reckless Republican budget.
Democrats are here to make it clear: Hands off Medicaid. Hands off the healthcare of the United States of America. Hands off nutritional assistance. Hands off veterans. Hands off everyday Americans struggling to make ends meet.
Republicans do nothing to lower the high cost of living. In fact, they are making the affordability crisis in America worse, not better. Then, they target earned benefits and things that are important to the American people, like Medicaid, to visit upon it such an extreme cut. What are they doing it for? What is it in service of? All to pass massive tax breaks for their billionaire donors like Elon Musk. The President himself has made that clear. At the end of the day, that is what this is all about. How extraordinary is that?
As Democrats, we support tax cuts for everyday Americans, tax cuts for small businesses, tax cuts for family farmers, and tax cuts for those who need relief, not tax cuts for the wealthy, the well-off, and the well-connected.
I stand in strong opposition to this GOP tax scam. The reason why, Mr. Speaker, I have said let's debate this on the House floor directly through a colloquy, transparently, is to make it clear to the American people where we stand and where Republicans stand at such a fragile moment with so many people in this country struggling to make ends meet.
House Democrats are going to continue to stand on the side of the American people. We are going to stand on the side of our children, of our families, of our veterans, of older Americans, of everyone aspiring to achieve the American Dream, stand up in defense of Medicaid, stand up in defense of veterans' benefits, stand up in defense of nutritional assistance, stand up in defense of economic opportunity and a fair tax code that is designed to build an economy that actually works for everyday Americans as opposed to an economy of the billionaires, by the billionaires, and for the billionaires.
That is why Democrats strongly oppose this reckless Republican budget resolution and will not rest until we bury it in the ground, never to rise again.
Mr. Speaker, after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the wages for the bottom 10 percent grew at twice the amount of the top 10 percent and wealth three times the top 1 percent. If Leader Jeffries is successful at killing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act extension, he will raise taxes by $1,739 for families in his district.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my good friend.
Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin told of a French woman who once confided to her sister: ``I don't know how it happens, sister, but I meet with nobody but myself that is always in the right.'' He was reminding his colleagues that democracies were never designed to make perfect decisions, only the most acceptable ones to the most people.
My disappointment in the Senate version before us is vast, but it has one redeeming quality: It is within reach. No, it doesn't begin to address the dangerous debt that threatens our Nation's solvency, but it does open up a process that is absolutely critical if we are going to stop a $4.5 trillion tax increase that would devastate our economy, provide the funds to secure our borders, and provide for our defense in a dangerous world.
I am frustrated with the Senate numbers, but in DOGE we trust. I think we can achieve a trillion dollars of savings as a result of its work. The mass repatriation of millions of illegal aliens should save another $150 billion. Restoring the work requirement for able-bodied welfare recipients will save hundreds of billions of dollars more without touching a single service for the truly needy. The economic rebound from the regulatory and fiscal reforms and from the bilateral free trade agreements the President intends to negotiate are potentially explosive.
None of these reforms are in this resolution, but all of them depend on this resolution. If anybody has a better alternative, they need to bring it to a vote in both Houses this week. Otherwise, let us take a little of Benjamin Franklin's advice, doubt a little of our own infallibility, and get on with the work we were elected to do and upon which the prosperity of our people and the future of our Nation depends.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard my Republican colleagues today admit that they were extending the tax cut for the rich and the large corporations. I have heard them say they are worried about the debt. Certainly, this resolution would also increase the debt.
What I have not heard the majority admit is that they are cutting Medicaid to pay for all this. They will not admit that. This is the second time now the budget resolution passed the House, and the budget resolution came over from the Senate. They are going to vote today on instructing my committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, to cut $880 billion at least.
Mr. Boyle, our ranking member, pointed out that the CBO got back to us and said that most, if not all, of that has to come from Medicaid cuts.
My Republican colleagues should please admit that they are voting today on Medicaid cuts. Do not deny it. Do not try to put it aside. That is what this is all about.
What does that mean? It means there is less money to the States, so they are going to cut back on nursing home care and on the money that goes to hospitals. Hospitals and nursing homes will close, or they will have such terrible quality of service or, in the case of the hospitals, will pass on those extra costs to other people who have insurance, and their insurance premiums go up.
What about people with disabilities? Most of them are dependent on Medicaid. Their services will be eliminated or cut back, as well.
Please, understand that a vote for this by the Republicans today is a vote to cut people's healthcare, to reduce their services, to kick people out of nursing homes, and to make hospitals unavailable.
Mr. Speaker, interestingly enough, the Democrats' expansion of ObamaCare actually put 90 cents on the dollar for able- bodied adults. They robbed our most vulnerable--our disabled, blind, and pregnant fellow Americans--of having access to healthcare, reducing the quality of outcomes over the years. That was a policy of the Democrats, and there are many others that need to be reversed.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern), my friend.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation that will unlock the critical work the American people elected us to do.
Let's not forget that the only reason we are in this position to be working on such important legislation is because of President Donald Trump. President Trump's message resonated with the American people, and they elected him in historic numbers. They delivered Republican majorities in the House and the Senate because they want Congress to deliver on the promises we made.
Today, it is time for us to act so that we can get on with the real work in our committees. In passing this budget framework, we are unlocking the process to deliver on unleashing American energy production, permanently securing our southern and northern borders, and making tax cuts permanent for small businesses and working families.
If we fail, every American will see the largest tax increase in American history. Just days away from tax day, this is as important a time as any to put the American people first. We cannot fail the hardworking Americans who are trusting us to get this done or the small businesses that rely on consistency in our tax code.
President Trump has fully secured our border and eliminated over $100 billion in government spending on waste, fraud, and abuse.
My Democratic colleagues speak of confusion, as we have heard today. Let me remove some of that confusion. President Trump's new proposal on tax cuts is for those making tips, not the wealthy; those on overtime, not the wealthy; and reducing the tax burden on those receiving Social Security, our seniors, not the wealthy.
The President has talked about giving tax credits or deductibility for interest on automobiles made in America so our great union workers in America can have better jobs and continue to see jobs grow in America, not the wealthy.
My Democratic colleagues want to talk about fear over facts, as we have heard from their leaders today. Let me remind them of what happened. They inherited a government in January 2021 with 1.4 percent inflation, and they delivered 9.1 percent inflation just 5 months later. That was almost a sevenfold, 700 percent, increase in inflation on the American people.
When they talk about being good stewards of the American taxpayers' tax dollars, this is an outright abuse of the facts. The facts are they are the ones who increased inflation, as my colleague said, over 20 percent over a 4-year period.
The reason the American people are suffering today is not because of the 70 days that President Trump has been in office. It is because of the 4 years of the Biden administration and the Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this budget, and I am proud to fight for President Trump's legislative agenda. I urge every one of my colleagues here to vote so we can get on to the debate that the leader on the other side of the aisle talked about.
Mr. Speaker, I am actually stunned as we stand here today because, as my colleagues talk about their plan, what they are doing, in reality, is giving billionaires the national credit card and telling them to go hog wild, racking up $14 trillion in national debt over the next 10 years so that large corporations can pay less in taxes. That doesn't lower costs for middle-class families in this country.
If this were a bill that we were talking about that would lower taxes for the middle class, I would be all for it.
To make matters worse, part of how they want to pay for this resolution is to cut the supplemental nutrition assistance program, or SNAP, by $230 billion. This cut would force the average SNAP household of four to spend over $2,000 more on food.
Who are the majority of SNAP recipients? They are seniors living on fixed incomes, children, and disabled people. SNAP helps American families buy American-grown food. This cut takes a chunk out of the farm economy as well when they can least afford it because of the whiplash of this administration and Donald Trump's tariffs. This resolution would mean that farmers growing our food would make $30 billion less than anticipated in farm income, placing family farmers at risk.
This Republican budget only stands to make America hungrier and poorer so the rich can get richer. It is shameful, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, the inflation tax that my colleague put on her constituents with unbridled spending and failed economic policies actually took $1,100 out of the pockets of our fellow Americans, but the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act put $5,000 back into the pockets of our fellow Americans in every district.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Estes), my friend and a fellow Budget Committee member.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of advancing President Trump's America First agenda.
It was less than 2 months ago that I stood on this House floor as Republicans passed our budget resolution, putting a marker in the ground to restore and secure our country both physically and financially.
While I don't think this resolution goes far enough, the resolution that we are about to pass today is a positive step forward, and it is what Americans demanded 5 months ago.
Yesterday, I had the opportunity to talk directly with President Trump in the West Wing. He is asking Republicans to support this budget resolution to move the process forward. This resolution is only one more step in the process to obtain these positive results.
Voting ``yes'' means voting for a secure border and economic growth. By voting ``yes,'' we are voting for a path to make the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent. It means making economic growth provisions like research and development, the small business passthrough, interest deductibility, and immediate expensing permanent parts of our tax code. A ``yes'' vote prevents the largest tax increase for Americans in history.
As a fiscal hawk who will continue to work with the administration to rein in reckless spending, I am voting ``yes'' for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of difficult things about this, but one thing I want to say is that the Republicans are actually trying to change the rules of the game to say that this tax cut doesn't cost any money. The Senate is ignoring the rules we have observed for decades, ruling out the Parliamentarian, just declaring that extending these tax cuts doesn't cost any money, and that is a falsehood. We are just changing our accounting rules to do this.
The other fault with this is the chairman, Mr. Arrington, rightly pointed out we are borrowing $2 trillion every year, but this does nothing about that. All this does is take money from important programs to fund the extension of tax cuts, many of which are for the wealthy. Some may be for the nonwealthy, but much of it is for the wealthy. It is the wrong thing to do.
Every independent analysis says this will not lower the budget deficit but will increase it. Mr. Speaker, if you don't believe me, look at when we vote for the debt ceiling increase; $5 trillion to $18 trillion. What are we going to vote for? This is the wrong direction.
Mr. Speaker, after the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the top 1 percent of earners in this country, who pay 40 percent of the light bills and the expenses of this growing, massive Federal Government, paid more of a share of taxes than they did less. The code got more progressive.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Carey), my friend.
Mr. Speaker, today's vote really marks an essential step toward fulfilling the promise to the American people to extend the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, to enshrine border security into law, and to move forward toward American energy independence.
After enduring years of high inflation, American families and small businesses urgently need tax relief in order to thrive. We must pass our budget resolution today to start the budget reconciliation process and advance the policies that our American families expect from us.
It includes much-needed deficit reduction, as was mentioned earlier, which will secure a healthy financial future for our children and grandchildren. It will allow us to extend the successful tax cuts from 2017 that produced the unprecedented job growth and higher wages for American workers. I urge everyone to support the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this disastrous, debt-inflating budget resolution. Despite what the majority is saying today, it is a resolution that inflates our debt and deficit. It will hide the cost of tax cuts for billionaires, and it threatens our economy.
Mr. Speaker, it is a resolution that gives the majority a green light to selectively choose the score of a Republican tax cuts bill. It is a resolution that pretends that tax costs nothing. It is a resolution that would do damage to our Nation's finances and add $4.6 trillion to our Nation's debt.
Experts across this political spectrum have called this dishonest, fabricated scorekeeping, and it undermines the point of budget rules.
That is why I introduced an amendment to this resolution so that the Senate uses real estimates to determine its cost.
Instead, they are going to write themselves a blank check to be paid by the American people and to be paid by our children. That is why I oppose this and I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution, as well.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Senate amendment to the fiscal year 2025 budget resolution.
Let's be clear about what we are voting on today. We are not voting on the budget. We are not voting on the numbers. We are voting on the framework, a starting point for building a budget that delivers on President Trump's priorities.
Those priorities are securing our border, strengthening national security, energy independence, and preventing a tax hike of $4 trillion set to hit at the end of the year if we don't act.
Think of the reconciliation process as a baseball scrimmage. The House and Senate can't take the field and start crafting the budget until we step out of the dugout. Approving this framework gets us into the game.
Yes, there are concerns about how we achieve the spending cuts and reduce the deficit. That is a critical conversation, but it starts here.
In the last 100 years, Republicans have had just four chances to do a reconciliation bill. We were given a mandate by the American people. Let's not waste it. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, this budget is a bad deal. It takes billions of dollars from programs that working families rely on and gives that money to the very wealthiest Americans in the form of $7 trillion in tax breaks.
It slashes funding for programs like Medicaid. Nearly 2 million people in my State of New Jersey rely on Medicaid for healthcare. It raises the healthcare costs for folks who get their coverage through the Affordable Care Act. In my district, folks could see their premiums go up by $1,400 per year under this budget.
Though I know my colleagues across the aisle are very concerned with the Federal debt, this budget adds more than $5 trillion to the deficit. This is a rip-off for working families, and I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for kindly yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, the policies of the Biden-Harris administration crushed the spirit of the American people under the weight of rising costs from a 40-year high inflation, open borders, uncertain futures, and spending an avalanche on Biden's Big Government spending priorities that have saddled us with an annual deficit of $2 trillion.
The resolution before us today offers a path forward to rein in wasteful spending and put our Nation on a responsible and sustainable fiscal path. It reflects the commitment to the American people that would secure a better future for all of us.
This resolution secures the opportunity for tax cuts for hardworking American families and small businesses. It reins in the regulatory overreach that has long stifled our economic growth. It roots out waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal budget.
It is simply common sense that we focus on fiscal responsibility and rein in wasteful spending to which Washington has become so addicted.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my House colleagues, Chairman Arrington, and the Members of this body to accomplish the President's goals by way of this reconciliation measure.
Mr. Speaker, I stand here appalled and terribly disappointed at the actions of the Republican majority and the brazen cruelty and flagrant deceit with which Republicans in Congress and the Trump-Musk administration are trying to shove this fallacy down the throats of everyday American people.
Nearly one in three Americans count on Medicaid. Yet Republicans are pushing a cut of at least $880 billion in Medicaid. What is the purpose?
This is the purpose. As I sit on the Committee on Ways and Means, I know that they must add $7 trillion, trillion with a t, in giveaways to billionaire donors and big corporations, while ripping healthcare and food away from veterans, seniors, and children.
Mr. Speaker, yes, Americans are fed up with the chaos. They are also fed up with the cruelty, the lack of humanity, and the willingness to help everyday Americans who are being exploited by this.
Mr. Speaker, I take that it we don't have the support of our Democrat colleague for the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid.
Quite frankly, it is pervasive throughout the Federal Government and threatens that program, threatens the benefits to our most vulnerable, and threatens the sustainability of that program for future Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my dear friend and our fearless majority leader.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend from the great State of Texas, the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and in moving this process forward. Let's keep in mind that we worked incredibly hard, especially here in the House, for months to negotiate all the details of what needs to happen in this budget reconciliation. It is all laid out in this House budget.
The process is where eleven of our committees in the House will go to work to start making improvements in so many areas to get America back on track. Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, that is why we all come here. We come here to solve big problems.
We deal with small issues, too. It is not often, but every now and then we deal with a big issue that can actually improve the lives of families all across this country. We can solve problems that have been going unanswered for years and decades. Mr. Speaker, we can address that in this resolution.
Let's go through some of the things that this resolution allows us to do because this resolution doesn't do any of those things, it just opens the door to start that reconciliation process.
The product front and center that most people talk about and that is a big piece, but surely not the only piece, is to make sure that Americans don't face a massive tax increase.
Mr. Speaker, if we listen to our friends on the other side of the aisle, they brag that they want these tax rates to go up. They want the 2017 tax cuts we passed with President Trump to expire. They don't mince any words about that. In fact, it was even talked about during the campaign.
The voters surely had a say on what they wanted when President Trump said he wanted to keep tax rates low on hardworking families and his opponent said she wanted those cuts to expire so those tax rates would go up on those hardworking families.
The hardworking families of America said where they wanted to go. In fact, the majority of all Americans said they don't want their taxes to go up.
Think about which tax rates will go up. On the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues love to talk about class warfare as if that is something Americans should celebrate. I think it is insulting to any American who believes in the promise of the American Dream to try to insult and separate our country based on how much money they make.
Whatever a person makes today, the greatest thing about America, the greatest country in the history of the world, is that whatever someone is today, however much they make today, wherever they came from today, they can be anything they want to be if they work hard, play by the rules, and follow their dreams, whatever that dream is, even if that person wants to be a billionaire
Mr. Speaker, frankly, talk to most billionaires. They didn't start off chasing wealth because that is not what gets them there. They chased the idea of something bigger than themselves. It usually involves bringing a lot of other people along with them. It involves creating a lot of wealth for a lot of other people along the way, too.
I guess the people on the other side of the aisle want to crush that ability. Mr. Speaker, go to Marxist countries, which is the utopia of some of the people on the left. Those Marxist countries don't have any billionaires to beat up on because they don't allow anyone to have that opportunity. They tell people what they can do, how much they can make, what kind of job they can have, and what their potential is. That is not America, and that never should be America.
Mr. Speaker, Americans can be whatever they want to be because of what is great about this country. If a person happens to get success, however it is defined--and it doesn't even have to be financial--if someone gets success, why should the government want to punish them for achieving it?
Again, there are great examples all over the world of how failed that approach is and every one of those countries has experimented with that, and it has been a dismal failure. I don't see any of the people, that want to change America to that, going to those other countries, because those other countries are so failed.
Let's start with that. Look at the individual income tax rates. We want to keep them where they are. We would like to make them lower, but we surely don't want them to go up as the other side of the aisle wants to do.
If these tax cuts are allowed to expire, which a ``no'' vote today would ensure, if the tax rates expire, it is not millionaires and the billionaires they keep talking about; it is 95 percent of all families in America who would see their taxes go up.
Unless a person makes $70,000 a year and thinks they are a billionaire, their taxes are going to go up. If they make $50,000 a year, their taxes will go up. The alternative minimum tax comes back. A lot of people don't know what that is because we got rid of it in 2017. Every member of the Democratic Party voted ``no'' because they didn't want those taxes to go away, but, luckily, we got the votes without them and passed it.
For the middle class of this country, that was a kick to the gut. We got rid of that. That would come back 100 percent, and all of those people in the middle class would see a massive tax hike.
Think about small businesses. People love to come here and talk about small businesses. We should do everything we can to help the creation of more small businesses and to help the growth of our existing small businesses.
Mr. Speaker, what happens if there is a ``no'' vote on this resolution?
There is a tax provision called 199A. Very few people might be able to explain it if they were asked to explain it.
Let me tell you what it is. 199A, that would expire if we keep going with this resolution, is the equalizer for small businesses to be able to compete on the same level playing field as a large business, a massive, multinational corporation.
The massive, multinational corporations already have their tax rates set at 21 percent. Think of the small business down the street, the mom-and-pop store, the business that is hiring three people, that is allowing that person to maybe be the next billionaire. They are not there today, but they might want to get there. If 199A goes away, all of a sudden that small business and every small business in America goes from paying a 21 percent equivalent to almost 43 percent.
Mr. Speaker, the small businesses will get crushed because they won't be able to compete with the big, multinational corporations.
I don't know why the Democrats who oppose this resolution want multinational corporations to get a two-times advantage over every small business in America, but that is what a ``no'' vote means.
The Democrats can hide behind billionaires all day long. The billionaires will benefit from that. We want to allow those small businesses to keep thriving. Yes, maybe some of them will become billionaires, and I am not going to attack them if they do. We ought to celebrate it if they do.
Some of them actually don't make it. A lot of them won't make it if this resolution fails, Mr. Speaker. We protect that as well so they can have their shot at the American Dream; so the single mom who has maybe never had a family that was able to afford their own house can go own their own business and one day buy their own house, maybe get a nice car, and maybe get the nice things in life. They don't have that opportunity if this resolution fails. That is what is at stake.
We do a lot of other things that we will open up the door to go do in reconciliation by passing this resolution. We secure America's border. Now, again, this was a major issue on the campaign, and I know the folks on the other side want an open border. Thank God President Trump won and followed through on his promise to secure the border. We now have a 95-percent reduction in illegal crossings at our border. However, that doesn't solve the problem, Mr. Speaker.
President Trump wants to continue to give our Border Patrol agents the tools they need to do their job effectively. Why the previous administration denied them these tools we can all debate, but the voters of this country made a decision in November. They said: We don't want our Border Patrol agents to be at a disadvantage with the drug cartels in Mexico, which they are.
Drug cartels have better technology today than America's Border Patrol agents. That is a disgrace. Mr. Speaker, you can see drones, and you can see night vision goggles not with our Border Patrol agents. Do you know who has got them? It is the Mexican drug cartels. Our Border Patrol agents who risk their lives to keep our families safe don't have that same ability. Shame on anybody who wants to deny
We also do something, Mr. Speaker, that we used to all agree on in this Chamber, and now, unfortunately, it has become a partisan issue. We still believe in strengthening America's defense. Believe it or not, the bad guys are still out there. There are not necessarily more of them, but it is the same people who have been bad for generations, and if we sit back and stay complacent and don't keep up, go look at China's military right now, how much they are advancing their naval fleet that we are not.
We can look at all the other countries, Iran and Russia, those countries still intend bad things on our friends, but one day they want to have those bad things apply to us too, Mr. Speaker.
How do we stop it? It is by having a strong national defense. We bolster our national defense in this resolution.
Why does President Trump call it one big, beautiful bill? It is because it does a lot of critically important things all in one resolution that helps get this country back on a strong footing.
What else it does is it produces incredibly needed savings, Mr. Speaker, savings that the American taxpayers want, as well. They want their tax dollars being spent better. They want to see this Congress find a way to get back to balanced Federal budgets.
Why don't we all work together to do that? We are here working together to do that. Unfortunately, the other side of the aisle doesn't want to achieve that. They want to vote against any attempt to save money. They criticize DOGE when they identify hundreds of billions of dollars of tax dollars being wasted in foreign countries and here on American soil wasted.
People who work two and three jobs and are working their tails off to help provide for their family are incensed when they hear about this waste.
They say: When is somebody going to do something about it? President Trump said: I am going to do something about it. He actually campaigned about that too, Mr. Speaker. He said what he would do, and he is doing it. There should be a parade applauding a President who actually ran on saying I am going to do things and then he is actually following through on the promises.
The other side can still be upset that they lost the election, and they will keep losing elections as long as they stay in denial about what this country wants, but this country, the American people, 77 million of them, went to the polls and said: These are the things we want our President to do, and their President whom they voted for is doing those things. He needs help from this Congress to continue to follow through on that.
That is what passing this resolution today does. It starts that process. There will be more time to debate every one of these items I talked about, and the people who are against all the things I laid out can still talk about why they are against them. They can make up fake bogeymen: Oh, it is the billionaires, it is this, it is that the disabled people are going to lose benefits.
Do you know what we do, Mr. Speaker? We strengthen benefits for people that are truly needed, Mr. Speaker, because so many of these programs that once used to be so great and talked about and lofty have been abused.
How many illegals are here, people who are here in this country illegally, are on some of these programs that are going bust? Yes, they are going bankrupt. Those aren't my numbers, Mr. Speaker. You can go look at Biden's own actuaries on those programs. Biden's actuaries said that those programs are going bankrupt, and the other side just wants to demagogue and say: Leave them alone; leave them be.
To let them go bankrupt would be irresponsible. We can make them work better for the people who are actually here in America who pay into those programs and who have earned those programs or who had something bad happen in their life where they have to be on one of those programs, instead of people who are stealing from those programs. As far as the waste, fraud, and abuse alone, government agencies have given reports on $60 billion a year in waste just in Medicaid, and they want that waste to continue on the other side.
That is what a ``no'' gets us. It is allowing the $60 billion a year in waste in Medicaid and fraud in Medicaid to continue. That is the theft of hardworking taxpayers' money. That is taking healthcare away from the disabled who need it.
Let's actually get back to having these programs work for the people who funded them, who paid into them, who deserve to be on them, and who need to be on them. That is what we do with this resolution.
Let the other side keep demagoguing and keep making up stories, false stories, and personality fights with a person they don't like who won an election and they are still angry about that result.
They should look in the mirror, and maybe one day they will say: Why? Why did all those people, 77 million of them, go to the polls and say: We want President Trump to be in the White House to go do those things he said he would do?
He is doing them. Let's help him do it. Everybody should be supporting this. Whoever is not can still try to be roadblocks. We are going to keep moving forward, Mr. Speaker, because the future direction of this country demands it. The people in this country demand that we keep moving forward and fixing the problems that are holding them back and holding more greatness for this country back.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everybody to vote ``no,'' but anybody who doesn't want to vote ``no'' needs to understand what they are blocking and understand what they are voting ``no'' on.
The rest of us are going to keep going to work for those hardworking people who are tired of struggling, Mr. Speaker. They are tired of waiting for the right kind of things to happen in Washington. We can finally make those right things happen. We do it by voting for this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, the majority leader just said something absolutely remarkable. He said that there should be a parade for President Trump.
I have very good news for him. There is going to be a parade for President Trump thrown by Donald Trump in honor of himself paid for by taxpayers to the tune of $92 million.
Oh, but to the 72 million Americans watching at home and are on Medicaid: You are still going to get your Medicaid cut.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), who is a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. Speaker, Speaker Johnson calls our soaring national debt the ``number one threat'' to our Nation. The Republican Senate leader says that it is a ``ticking time bomb'' just before he lights the fuse with this sorry resolution that hikes the debt by $6 trillion.
The independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget urges us to reject this ``unprecedented level of fiscal recklessness.''
Republicans are borrowing trillions more so Elon and his billionaire buddies can get more.
Already a wrecking ball to our democracy, Trump, the self-described ``king of debt,'' is king today with his schemes to spike the debt as the Musk DOGE charade wrecks public services and Trump's ``beautiful'' tariff wrecks our economy and heads us straight toward a recession.
With soaring debt, plummeting markets, and a measles outbreak, I have to give the Republicans credit for turning America red, but not the way we expected.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans spent the last 4 years telling Americans to trust them on the economy, and Donald Trump promised to lower costs for Americans on day one.
Months into this administration, with Republicans in complete control, prices are up, inflation is up, joblessness is up, the stock market is all over the place with American retirees losing
Let's be clear: Republicans have no plan to prioritize hardworking Americans, but they have a $7 trillion plan to help billionaires. They will do that by cutting Medicaid and nutrition programs and exploding the national debt by $6 trillion.
This budget resolution makes Americans sicker and poorer, and it will make the rich richer.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to have some common sense and work with Democratic colleagues. Together we can address all of this. I will be voting ``no'' on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Boyle for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand against the GOP's billionaire bonanza. It cashes out precious healthcare dollars and enriches ultrawealthy billionaires and leaves ordinary Americans to pick up the tab.
My colleagues across the aisle proposed to add an astounding $14 trillion more to our debt over the next decade.
Why? It is to fund more tax cuts for billionaires.
How? Speaker Johnson cuts hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid, a lifeline for millions of our citizens, including more than 200,000 in the district I represent. Every hospital I represent sustains itself with Medicaid and Medicare.
This debate isn't just about the numbers on a balance sheet. It is about the health of the American people. How will we keep our hospitals open and our nursing homes open? How do we take care of the American people's health?
This Republican resolution is totally irresponsible. It is an abdication of our duty to serve all the American people, not just those at the top.
Mr. Speaker, the top 1 percent of earners in this Nation control more wealth than the bottom 50 percent. It is time for economic fairness. Vote ``no'' on this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate amendment. The American people gave Congress a clear mandate to lower costs, reduce burdensome regulations, and unlock American resources.
Passing the resolution before us will allow committees to thoughtfully craft and debate legislation to extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts, averting a $4 trillion to $5 trillion tax increase on the American people, and to use our resources to generate more revenue and to cut wasteful spending.
The resolution in itself is not the solution, but it unleashes committees to put pen to paper and craft reconciliation legislation that fully delivers on the promises the President and House Republicans have made the American people.
Mr. Speaker, if we look in this beautiful Chamber, I have only located one quote from our past that is displayed here, and it is up above you up close to the ceiling. We are getting close to celebrating the 200-year anniversary of those words that Daniel Webster spoke in 1825 when he said: ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth our powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered.''
Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on Natural Resources looks forward to taking action to develop our Nation's resources and to do that responsibly. Our resources are among our Nation's greatest assets and revenue generators.
This resolution starts the process to do something worthy to be remembered in our day and generation, a process to keep taxes low for working Americans, to unlock the full potential of our natural resources, and to deliver on Speaker Johnson's directive to have the resolution on the President's desk by Memorial Day.
Mr. Speaker, I support it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the distinguished ranking member of the Education and Workforce Committee and also a member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, yet again.
I hear speech after speech from the other side about the deficit and debt, and here I see this resolution, which increases the deficit.
Let's start with some facts. Every single Democratic Presidential administration since Kennedy has left for their Republican successor a better deficit situation than they inherited, and every Republican President since Nixon has left for the Democrats a worse deficit situation than they inherited, all without exception.
Here we are again. A Republican President following a Democratic President and, once again, a budget that would explode the deficit and national debt, just like clockwork, with their tax cuts for corporations and the top 1 percent.
Trump's first term added over $7 trillion to the national debt, and he wants to double down and do it all over again.
As the ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce, I am particularly outraged that Republicans want to partially fund these tax cuts for corporations and billionaires by making cuts to education programs and child nutrition programs. This resolution will direct them to cut Medicaid, ripping healthcare away from millions of Americans.
There is nothing fiscally responsible about this budget. It will add to the deficit, and the resolution wants to further inflict pain on working families and the middle class.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for the damage it will do to the economy and to the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for his leadership.
Mr. Speaker, in order for us to deliver one big, beautiful reconciliation bill, one that extends the provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, reins in regulations of wasteful spending, unleashes American energy, secures the border, curbs inflation, and restores American growth and competitiveness, we first must pass the budget resolution.
This resolution, Mr. Speaker, is no more than a bridge to reconciliation and to the golden era of the American economy. Frankly, what that bridge is made of really makes no difference, so long as we cross it. Delaying this vote in a symbolic protest only weakens our ability to act.
Every day we wait, we put our economy, our national security, and our momentum at risk.
The American people voted for bold action, Mr. Speaker, and President Trump and we in Congress intend to deliver.
The reconciliation process begins with this resolution. Let's not protest the bridge that gets us there. Let's cross it and achieve the results the American people expect from the Republican majority.
Let's pass this and deliver a new golden age in America.
Mr. Speaker, the proposal that we are hearing from the other side is reckless and irresponsible.
What they are saying is what they usually say: Let's complain about the size of the national debt and then borrow the money for tax cuts to go to people at the very top.
I defy anybody on this side to say right now that that is not what happened in 2017. They borrowed $2.3 trillion, gave a tax cut to the wealthiest amongst us, and then complained about Biden running up the national debt.
The arithmetic doesn't work on this. The messaging might remain consistent, but what I have just said is entirely accurate. The money was borrowed in 2017. Then, when you look at tax distribution tables, just take a look at who got the money. The tax cut for the person at the top was 288 times what it was for the person making less than $50,000 a year.
These are the numbers. They don't lie. The messaging that comes from the other side would have you believe that they are on top of defending Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. They are threatening all three with these proposals.
I have not seen anything in my time like this, making massive cuts to Medicaid, closing Social Security offices, threatening Medicare, laying off veterans at veteran services offices, and then providing a tax cut to those in billionaire heaven down in the Cabinet.
Let's have an honest discussion between the two parties about fiscal policy.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding. I appreciate the able job that he has done in ushering through a responsible budget on the House side of the Capitol. Unfortunately, we are here debating an irresponsible budget sent over to us from the Senate.
First, before my colleagues on the other side of the aisle applaud me for my opposition to the Senate bill, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to acknowledge any program that they don't think they can just continue to shovel money out from, despite the fact it has terrible outcomes.
Medicaid is debilitating the vulnerable, not helping them. We are shoveling money out to the able-bodied on the back of expansion of ObamaCare. We are crippling the very program they say they want to uphold while we allow money laundering to California, which they brag about openly, to give money to those who are here illegally and to destroy the program with an FMAP rate that is higher than the vulnerable, giving out more money than we even give to Medicare.
To my friends on this side of the aisle: When are we going to get serious about spending?
The House budget actually does a job of trying to get to budget neutrality, balancing tax policy and spending policy. The Senate sent over a joke, and we are going to capitulate to the Senate, knowing full well that the Senate instructions carry the day.
We are going to be sitting there in a reconciliation debate where we are going to end up on the short end of the stick. Worse, the American people are going to end up on the short end of the stick because it absolutely increases deficits. No one can deny it.
Anyone who wants to get in a room and come debate me with a whiteboard, show me the math. At some point, if you are in Congress, pass a math test because the Senate bill doesn't add up. It will destroy this country with more deficits and the inflation tax that is crippling the average American family.
Mr. Speaker, I once again rise in opposition to the Republican rip-off.
Let's be crystal clear about what Senate Republicans did to this budget resolution. They made a terrible bill that rips off middle-class Americans even worse.
They are telling you that two plus two equals zero in this budget resolution to obfuscate the truth. It will explode our national debt. It will make the Trump tax scam permanent. It will make devastating and inhumane cuts to lifesaving services for working Americans to fund tax giveaways to the ultrarich.
Instead of standing up for their constituents, Republicans bend the knee to their wannabe emperor and his court of jesters and lackeys in the White House.
This budget resolution tells us exactly who the Republicans are working for and who they want to help, and it is not the American people.
Mr. Speaker, it is a betrayal, and I won't stand for it.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you exactly what is going on in Louisville, Kentucky, right now. Grocery prices are up, and retirement savings are in chaos.
Republicans could put an end to this crisis, but instead, they are going to make things worse.
Republicans are about to hand billionaires like Elon Musk $5.3 trillion in tax cuts, the biggest billionaire tax cut in American history. To pay for it, Republicans are cutting health insurance for families; ripping away food from kids, seniors, and veterans; and cutting public education, all while increasing the national debt by $5 trillion.
I don't ever want to hear a Republican complain about the debt again because no matter how they try to cook the books--believe me, they are doing that, too--they cannot hide from the negative impact this budget will have.
Seniors will lose healthcare coverage. Veterans will lose coverage for the medications they need. Kids will go hungry. For what? So Elon Musk pays even less in taxes? It is reckless and it is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans refuse to listen. They refused in February when they spiked my amendments to support Medicaid and SNAP, and they refused again today. This is despite the pleas of Americans protesting Donald Trump and Republicans' plan to steal their healthcare and let kids go hungry and despite the overwhelming majority crying out for everyday Americans over the whims of billionaires.
Clearly, Republicans don't care about the facts or figures. Maybe they will listen to my constituent Al. Al is a 74-year-old resident of an assisted living facility in East Providence. He is petrified of Republican cuts that will force him onto the street. Al needs Medicare and Medicaid to make ends meet. Even with assistance, he lives on $120 a month. That is $30 a week.
It is not fear-mongering to say that Republicans' plans would hurt Al to prop up billionaires.
I will be voting ``no'' for the middle class, for families, for seniors, and for folks like Al.
Mr. Speaker, this budget resolution isn't about fiscal responsibility. It is about enriching the ultrawealthy and betraying working people. It is about gutting Medicaid and SNAP so that the rich can continue to hoard more tax breaks.
These cuts do not make our country stronger. They make it sicker, hungrier, and more unfair.
This time, Republicans are not even pretending to pay for it. Senate Republicans are rewriting the rules and inventing fake budget math to claim that these tax cuts will not cost us anything.
In truth, they cost the American people $7 trillion in total. All of this is being done to pave the way for a Trump term built on fear, lawlessness, and vengeance.
President Trump is firing public servants, slashing critical programs, and enacting chaotic tariffs that will raise costs. This chaotic administration is trying to drag us into a recession. Instead of stopping it, congressional Republicans are acting as willing accomplices.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican budget.
Let's lay out where we are. Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House, and they could be passing legislation right now to actually lower costs for families on groceries, prescription drugs, and housing.
Instead, they are attacking the very programs that working people and middle-class people across this country rely on. They have proposed a budget that gives massive tax cuts to the wealthiest and the corporations.
How will they pay for it? They will pay for it by making cuts to Medicaid to the tune of $880 billion and deep cuts to SNAP benefits, food assistance to families. On top of that, they will add to the deficit.
When I vote against this Republican budget, I will be thinking about all of the working families back in Vermont, thinking of the families who aren't going to be able to drop their kids off at a Head Start program, and thinking about the small businesses who tell me that the Trump on-again, off-again global tariffs are crushing them.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this reckless budget.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority leader said: You can be what you want in America.
That is what he said, but you can't be what you want in Republicans' America. Factually, the top 1 percent of billionaires and millionaires in America are worth more than 291 million Americans, 90 percent of the country, because we are rigging the economy against them. That is what Republicans are doing.
There are 801 U.S. billionaires who have $6 trillion of wealth, and Republicans now want to give a $4.5 trillion tax cut to the wealthiest billionaires.
That is what Donald Trump said: ``You're rich as hell.'' ``We're going to give you tax cuts.'' This is on the backs of working Americans because voting ``yes'' for this resolution is voting for a minimum of $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid.
That is healthcare taken away from 72 million Americans. That is nursing homes taken away for five out of eight seniors, and that is healthcare taken away for 38 million kids. Vote ``no'' on this disastrous Republican resolution.
Mr. Speaker, this is an opportunity this evening to vote for a budget resolution that extends tax relief for working families.
If Members want to support working families in America, vote for this. It makes the Trump tax cuts permanent. It also provides security for our southern border. It unleashes American energy, and it sets the stage for generational spending reform. This is an opportunity today to move this resolution forward.
There is a lot of fear-mongering on the other side. As has been said before, the words ``Medicaid'' and ``Medicare'' are not in there. It is simply wrong. ``Medicaid'' is not in there.
It keeps getting said, and I guess if you don't have the facts on your side, sometimes you make up facts, and that is what is happening from the other side. Yet, the American people know, which is why they elected Donald Trump this year. They know what a responsible budget means, and that is why we need to pass this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Virginia (Mr. Beyer), the distinguished senior Democrat on the Joint Economic Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this budget resolution, which is a recipe for economic disaster for our country.
Americans have been clear. They want lower prices and an economy that works for them. Yet, at every turn, this administration and my Republican colleagues are doubling down on policies that raise prices, undermine our economy, and make our wealth inequality even worse.
Mr. Speaker, I spent much of today with U.S. Trade Ambassador Greer, and it is clear that the administration's myth that tariffs will reshape the economy by bullying our closest allies is nothing more than a fantasy.
The Trump tariffs represent the largest tax hike in American history. They have caused chaos in the markets and stripped millions from Americans' retirement plans. Consumer confidence is plummeting, reaching its lowest level in 12 years, and economists are increasingly convinced that we are heading for a recession.
This budget will balloon our deficit, leading to higher interest rates. It will slash critical investments and will decimate essential programs that support the people who we represent, all of this to help billionaires and corporations get tax cuts that they do not need and that our country cannot afford.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury), distinguished member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Mr. Speaker, the amount of gaslighting in this Chamber this afternoon has been absolutely stunning, truly, as I sat here this afternoon.
What the GOP is doing is they are introducing a budget resolution that takes the worst of the House and the worst of the Senate and puts it in one big, beautiful bill that is going to blow a hole through the national debt. It will do that by raising the debt ceiling by $4 trillion, cutting $1.5 trillion in vital programs, giving $7 trillion in permanent tax breaks to billionaires, and raising the debt by $37 trillion over the next 30 years.
How are Republicans going to pay for it? On the backs of the American people with cuts to Medicaid, food assistance, housing, school meals, clean energy, and selling your public lands.
Mr. Speaker, the craziest thing is the majority said that Republicans wouldn't vote for it if it would raise the debt and the debt ceiling, and here they are.
Bravo to my friends. My Republican colleagues are blowing a hole through the debt ceiling, and we will vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, this is about the billionaires. It is not about the middle class. It is not about a budget deficit because the majority wouldn't have to give the money to the billionaires if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle gave it to decreasing the deficit.
This is the party that is trying to kill Social Security through the DOGE boys, who are cutting out services for people who use the phone to deal with their Social Security and eliminating employees from Social Security. The majority is trying to kill Social Security. That is who it is, and Republicans want to help the billionaires and hurt the folks who live on Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it has been a good debate that has brought out a couple of clear facts. Even though President Trump directed House Republicans last night to ``close your eyes'' and just pass the resolution, I believe the speakers on this side have opened the eyes of the American people.
These are indisputable facts: the largest cut to Medicaid in American history in order to help pay for a tax cut, 83 percent of which goes to the richest 1 percent of Americans.
Indeed, this is a big, beautiful bill for billionaires. Vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am obsessed with the threat of a looming debt crisis and the irreparable harm it would do to our great economy, our national security, our leadership in the world, and our children's future.
We have an opportunity. It is a historic generational opportunity to right this ship, but we have to grow the economy. We have to have progrowth policies in place that will unleash growth and prosperity, and we have to get serious about the first and most important job of the Federal Government, which is providing for the common defense.
We did that in the House bill, but what we did in the House bill that the Senate fell far short in doing is to have a balanced budget resolution, to have a commitment to enforceable spending reduction targets that would bring the debt to GDP down and put our Nation on good fiscal footing and a sustainable path.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues today to demand that the House budget resolution and that our fiscal framework with our budget targets guide the final reconciliation bill.
Mr. Speaker, again, this may be the last best opportunity to save our country from fiscal ruin. The formula is all there in the House budget resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to demand that that is what drives the bill at the end of the day. God bless America, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the House will vote on the Senate revised budget resolution this evening.
The budget resolution requires seven House committees to cut a minimum of $1.5 trillion in mandatory spending combined over the next decade. Of that amount, at least $880 billion is directed to come from the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Most budget experts have agreed that it would require deep cuts in Medicaid to produce these savings.
In my home state of Georgia, Medicaid is a lifeline for its low- income populations, seniors, disabled individuals, and children. It is the primary source of long-term care, the single largest payer in the country for behavioral health services, and a principal source of insurance for pregnant women and children with disabilities.
One of the proposals that is now being discussed in Congress to achieve Medicaid savings is adding work requirements. In fact, Georgia added work requirements to its Medicaid program in July 2023 through its Pathways to Coverage program. It is currently the only state to offer Medicaid coverage to low-income adults that is contingent on work and other qualifying activities.
According to the Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, however, there have been significant problems since this experiment in Medicaid reform was established two years ago. It is failing to achieve its two primary objectives of enrolling people in health care and getting them to work.
Georgia's Pathways to Coverage program is supposed to cover nearly a quarter-million low-income Georgians who can prove they are working, studying or volunteering. Only about 6,500 of them, however have been able to gain and maintain coverage.
In Georgia's Second Congressional District, which I represent, some of the poorest counties have fewer than 10 enrollees despite having high percentages of uninsured populations.
The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute also found that Georgia's Pathways to Coverage program created burdensome red tape and paperwork for state agencies and Medicaid recipients.
Georgia's experience offers a stark warning for the Nation as Republicans consider steep Medicaid cuts and work requirements for low- income Americans. The focus must be on increasing enrollment in health insurance for people who need it. The focus should not be on wasting taxpayer dollars and creating more administrative burdens.
We want people to be healthy so that they can work. It shouldn't be the other way around.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to House Resolution 313, the previous question is ordered.
Pursuant to clause 1(c) of Rule XIX, further consideration of H. Con. Res. 14 is postponed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 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, will now resume.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15- minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute votes on:
Passage of the bill, if ordered;
Concurring in the Senate amendment to H. Con. Res. 14, if ordered; and
The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1228, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212, nays 217, not voting 4, as follows:
Mr. BEGICH, Mrs. LUNA, Messrs. ELLZEY, FITZPATRICK, ALLEN, GRAVES, McGUIRE, SHREVE, OWENS, SMITH of Missouri, RUTHERFORD, OBERNOLTE, and McCORMICK changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. MOSKOWITZ, CONNOLLY, MEEKS, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mr. COSTA, Ms. LEE of Nevada, Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois, PANETTA, KEATING, MRVAN, and Ms. SCHAKOWSKY changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
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 question on suspending the rules and passing the bill (H.R. 1228) to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the organization of the Office of Survivors Assistance of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing the bill (H.R. 981) to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the processes to approve programs of education for purposes of the educational assistance programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
Mr. Speaker, I have seen firsthand the courage, the grit, and the sacrifice that define our Nation's Armed Forces. I have also seen the financial strain that far too many of our military families endure while they answer the call to serve.
While these men and women sacrifice daily for our country, their pay is still fully taxed by the Federal Government. Our servicemembers have defended freedom at home and abroad. They have fought for us, and it is past time that we fight for them.
That is why, this week, I introduced my first bill in Congress, the FIGHTER Act, to provide long-overdue tax relief to America's Active- Duty servicemembers.
This is more than a tax policy. It is a message of gratitude.
Now is not the time for more words but action.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with our warfighters, to support the FIGHTER Act, and to give our heroes the relief they have earned.
Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to recognize the eighth anniversary of Black Maternal Health Week, founded by Black Mamas Matter Alliance.
I want to take a moment to honor the life and legacy of my constituent, Fatima Carter.
I share with you a stunning portrait of her painted by Omari Maynard of the ARIAH Foundation.
Through an initiative called ``In Her Honor,'' the ARIAH Foundation and Mothering Justice uplift the lives of women like Fatima, Black mothers who should still be with us today.
A proud member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., Fatima worked for Abbott Nutrition and was a devoted stepmother to her teenage daughter, China Carter.
After multiple heartbreaking miscarriages, Fatima and her family were preparing to welcome her daughter, Cameron Carter.
Because Fatima lived with type 1 diabetes, her pregnancy was considered high risk. After a medical appointment with concerns about preeclampsia were raised, Fatima went to sleep, and she never woke up.
The coroner listed sudden cardiac death as the cause, but we know it was more than that. It was the result of our healthcare system that too often ignores Black women's pain.
We will not allow her story to be forgotten. We will not stop until justice, safety, and dignity in birth are guaranteed for all.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of my bill, the Safeguarding American Property Act.
In the 119th Congress, House Republicans have sent a clear message to criminal illegal aliens: If you break our laws, you go home.
Earlier this year, we passed the Laken Riley Act. My Safeguarding American Property Act builds on the good work of the Laken Riley Act by expanding the bill to include property crimes like trespassing and arson as deportable offenses.
Mitigating these types of property crimes is a particularly important challenge for border States and rural districts like mine which often have vast distances between homes and businesses and in which law enforcement resources are often spread thin.
This bill sticks up for those communities and upholds the fundamental American value of respecting property rights by providing additional legal requirements that ensure Federal immigration law is properly enforced.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the Safeguarding American Property Act to further strengthen the good policies codified in the Laken Riley Act.
Mr. Speaker, after Trump's so-called Liberation Day, the stock market cratered. American businesses halted investments because of the economic uncertainty. Families in Arizona saw their retirement accounts and 401(k)'s nosedive. The biggest financial firms in the country predicted a recession.
Now, of course, President Trump caved today, and that was actually the right thing to do. While this constant whiplash may make for a good episode of ``The Apprentice,'' it is no way to run the most powerful Nation and the largest economy in the world.
The Framers of the Constitution wisely gave Congress, not the President, power over trade and international commerce. My colleagues and I introduced a resolution to this body
Even a few brave Republicans are willing to stand up to President Trump and their own party on this critical issue. Sadly, Speaker Johnson decided to go a different direction. He tucked language into a procedural vote that bans these Republican and Democratic resolutions from coming to the floor for a vote--not even a vote. He is trying to avoid Republicans going on record against supporting Trump's chaos because he knows the American people are sick and tired of this.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and thank Deb DeLuca for her dedicated service as executive director of the Duluth Seaway Port Authority. Deb is currently the eighth director in Port Authority history and is the first woman to hold this title.
Since 2018, Deb has seamlessly overseen the largest freshwater port in the world. This has been no small feat, as the Port of Duluth- Superior welcomes 900 vessels each year and on average handles 35 million tons of cargo.
With Deb at the helm, the Port Authority has achieved many successes. Under her leadership, more than $35 million in port-related projects have been initiated, and freight transport efficiency and capacity has increased.
I have worked closely with Deb since my arrival in Congress in 2019. I have always enjoyed working with her, and I appreciate her partnership and guidance over the years. The Port of Duluth-Superior and the surrounding communities are better off because of her leadership and expertise.
Mr. Speaker, across the country, Head Start lives up to its name. It provides quality early childhood education so that working- class families can get ahead. However, right now, Head Start is under attack from Donald Trump and Republicans in this Chamber. They froze program funds, closed regional offices, and forced mass layoffs of those who administer Head Start. Worse still, Republican budget proposals open the door to hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Head Start.
Recently, I visited a Head Start provider in Woonsocket, Rhode Island, to hear from those who rely on the great program. I met with Savanna, who told me that Head Start is how she provided her children with safety, stability, and education after years of struggling. Head Start helps families like Savanna's break the cycle of trauma, fostering resilience and creating lasting change.
Mr. Speaker, let's choose a better path for our vulnerable neighbors. Let's protect Head Start.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my high school alma mater, the Christopher Columbus Explorers, for winning the national basketball championship.
After securing their fourth consecutive State championship in Florida's Class 7A, the Explorers made school history by capturing their first national title and county history as the only Miami-Dade County high school to ever win a national basketball title.
These young men have demonstrated relentless dedication and perseverance throughout the season. I am proud to see that their hard work and commitment was rewarded. I extend my congratulations to Coach Andrew Moran, his staff, and the entire team on this remarkable accomplishment.
Through unity, tradition, and excellence they have cemented their place in Columbus and Miami-Dade County history. ``Forward''; ``Adelante.''
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable human being, a dear friend, Francie Pepper. Francie, at her core, was a mom and a grandmother but also an advocate, a philanthropist, and a champion for women and children.
Francie led enormous change for survivors of domestic violence. It is just one of many examples of the impact she had, but a critical one. She never stopped fighting for what she knew was right.
Her home in Cincinnati was a place for community and community change. She built coalitions and inspired generations of public servants, including me.
Francie wasn't just a leader. She was a force. I am who I am in part because of her. That is true for so many of us. We are the beneficiaries of her grit and her toughness and her love.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the remarkable heroism of the 1st Marine Division of the United States Marine Corps and their actions during the Battle of Okinawa. One of those heroes was my father, who was a corporal, who is pictured here beside me.
April 1st marks the 80th anniversary of the start of the brutal Battle of Okinawa which began on Easter Sunday in the Pacific. The battle was the final and critical push to free Asia from the grip of evil.
The 1st Marine Division was tasked with clearing the northern half of Okinawa, accomplishing this mission swiftly. When reassigned to take the other half of the island, they faced fierce resistance from the Japanese, fighting in key locations like Sugarloaf Hill and Shuri Castle. At the base of Shuri Castle right there is where my dad is pictured.
While my father was fortunate enough to survive and return home to a grateful nation, his division endured unimaginable losses with 1,655 men killed in action. Their sacrifice is a solemn reminder of the bravery, sacrifice, and unbreakable spirit not only of the Marine Corps but of the Greatest Generation. We just don't know the sacrifices they made, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise on the floor today as people across the Dominican diaspora are united in solidarity to mourn the devastating tragedy in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic.
Following the collapse of a roof at a nightclub, 124 individuals lost their lives and 150 are injured, and many are still missing. I express my deepest condolences to the families of each of the victims and embrace them during this time of hurt. We stand in solidarity with all of those who have been affected by this heartbreaking event. Their pain is our pain, and their grief is felt by all who hear them. In this moment of profound sorrow, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.
``May peace be with the lost souls of this tragedy, and may their loved ones forever cherish the memories they have of each of them.'' ``Estamos con ustedes, nuestras oraciones estan en nuestros corazones con ustedes. Dios les bendiga.''
Mr. Speaker, Elon Musk said recently in a Joe Rogan podcast: ``The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy.'' He further said that empathy has been ``weaponized.''
This is consistent with his statement that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, not the program that has saved the lives and the livelihood of countless Americans. This is the philosophy of the world's richest man, Elon Musk.
Let me contrast that philosophy with that which was expressed in Matthew 25:
``For I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you took me in, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you ministered to me, I was in prison, and you visited me.
``Then the righteous will answer, `Lord, when did we see you hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, sick or in prison?' And he will answer, `When you did this for the least of my brothers, you did it for me.' ''
Empathy: Not the weakness of Western civilization; the bedrock of Western civilization.
Mr. Speaker, I will point out one more time the perverse incentives of our welfare state.
I will just mention one type right now: Section 42, low-income housing. Section 42 low-income housing is very generous to property developers, who wind up only having to pay for 30 percent of the cost of their housing.
Worse, because it is new housing, I had a staffer looking for a new apartment building with her new husband, and they found out the best apartments in town were the low-income housing.
In order to be eligible for low-income housing, you almost certainly can't be married. In order to be eligible, you can't be working very hard.
I think this body ought to get out of the business of encouraging people not to work hard, and they especially ought to get out of the business of discriminating against people who are married with children. I sure hope that this body, when we finally deal with the reconciliation bill, gets rid of these perverse antimarriage incentives.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the workers and families of Maui, still recovering from the devastating wildfires of 2023. Displaced workers continue to drive Maui's recovery, rebuilding homes, clearing debris, restoring infrastructure, and supporting their communities.
The National Dislocated Worker Grant has been vital in funding such disaster recovery work and providing job training, temporary employment, and career services to wildfire survivors.
I am grateful to the Department of Labor for awarding Hawaii $2.5 million in dislocated worker grant funding. While this is a step in the right direction, the livelihoods of displaced workers, the health of our local economy, and the long-term trajectory of Maui's recovery remain in the balance.
We must continue working to secure all remaining dislocated worker funds available--$8 million--to ensure the program continues through September 2025. We can and must give our local workers this certainty during an uncertain time. Without these funds, we risk losing momentum in the recovery and leaving workers without crucial support.
Maui's recovery is not just a priority. It is a promise to those who have lost so much. I will keep fighting to ensure that promise is kept.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in vigorous opposition to occupant Trump's hostile attacks, hostile and insecure attacks on Black history. Black history is American history.
Dictators try to shutter museums, censor history, and whitewash the truth, but we know the truth. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that centuries of bondage and enslavement brutalized Black bodies and tore apart Black families, that Black women have been the mothers of movements, that Black folks have endured redlining and pay disparities, and yet, still, we rise.
Black brilliance exists in every corner of this Nation, from the stage to the court to the classroom to the Halls of Congress. I want every single person, certainly every single child who calls this Nation home, to walk into our Smithsonian museums including our beautiful Blacksonian and see our collective history, accurate history on full display.
I want them to see themselves in our struggles and our triumphs. I want them to be inspired by the lyrics of Etta and the speeches of Malcolm, and the leadership of Fannie Lou.
It is by studying our history we learn how to overcome the systems of oppression, the reckless whims of petulant men thirsty for power, and the will of dictators. My Blackness is beautiful, and Black history is American history.
Mr. Speaker, the United States has not had a trade surplus in over half a century. Trade deficits translate into lost jobs and lost wealth for the American people. Balancing U.S. trade accounts is an imperative and a worthy objective, but Trump administration tariffs on the American people's purchases are taxes that cost them more money on everything, a lot more: a lot more for food, for gas, for building materials, for cars, for trucks, for everything.
Today, after the market bled off nearly $10 trillion in lost U.S. wealth last week, the President adjusted some tariffs, but nothing he did is reshoring American reinvestment here in our country. Our Nation imports three-quarters of our fruits and vegetables. We need agricultural reinvestment here in the good old USA.
NAFTA caused the cataclysmic outsourcing of U.S. manufacturing in autos and trucks. The President should focus on incentives to reshore U.S. production, not build more barriers.
Focus on free trade among free people. Help us with our best trade ally, Canada, especially those of us who live in the north. We believe in our fair trade partners around the world. Build on success. The American people need economic growth, not any more tourniquets around their necks because of tariffs.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to take action to protect Social Security from defunding by the administration.
For me, for my colleagues, and for many Americans, we see Social Security as not just a program but as a lifeline for millions of hardworking Americans, including the more than 136,000 Social Security recipients in my 6th District of Maryland alone.
It is a promise made to every worker who contributes a portion of their hard-earned paycheck to the system throughout their career. It is not an entitlement. It is an earned benefit. For many, Social Security is the primary source of income and retirement, lifting millions out of poverty and assuring they have a dignified life after a lifetime of hard work.
Under this administration, the Social Security Administration is crumbling. Reports released last week showed that deep staffing cuts, indiscriminate cost-cutting measures, and a focus on eliminating supposed fraud have crippled
In sum, I will fight to ensure Social Security remains funded, properly staffed, and accessible to all who earned it.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Frances Garber Pepper, a fearless and focused giant in the fight for democracy, women's rights, and a better world, who passed away on March 28.
Francie meant so much to so many, whether it was through her vigorous advocacy for women or her unwavering love, energy, and compassion as a wife, mother, grandmother, friend, neighbor, and activist.
People ask me all the time what women have been an inspiration to me. Personally, first and foremost, is my mother; officially, our former colleague, Lindy Boggs, Ambassador Boggs; and, politically, Francie Pepper.
As a trailblazer of her own path, Francie was truly the epitome of women helping women, and I am so pleased that her legacy will carry on through a namesake fund that will help survivors and families of domestic violence.
May it be a comfort to all of Francie's family: Her beloved husband, John; children, John, David, Doug, and Susan; her entire family, and all her loved ones, so many people are mourning this loss and praying for them at this sad time.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a tribute written by Francie's son, David Pepper.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from California?
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 20 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, April 10, 2025, at 9 a.m.
