House Adopts Rule for Six Bills Under Closed Terms, Debates Small Business Regulatory Reduction and Red Tape Hotline Acts
The House convened for a session that included morning-hour debate, one-minute speeches, and the adoption of a rule to consider six measures. The rule, H. Res. 916, provided for the consideration of H.R. 4312, the SCORE Act; H.R. 1005, the Combating the Lies of Authoritarians in School Systems Act; H.R. 1049, the Transparency in Reporting of Adversarial Contributions to Education Act; H.R. 1069, the PROTECT Our Kids Act; H.R. 2965, the Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025; and H.R. 4305, the DUMP Red Tape Act. All six measures were brought to the floor under closed rules, which drew significant procedural debate. Following the adoption of the rule, the House proceeded to debate H.R. 2965 and H.R. 4305, both related to small business regulation, with votes on their passage postponed.
This chamber-day was significant due to the adoption of a rule that dictated the terms for considering six substantive bills, all under closed rules, which limited the ability of Members to offer amendments. The debate on the rule itself highlighted deep divisions over legislative process and priorities. The subsequent debate on two small business-focused bills, H.R. 2965 and H.R. 4305, underscored ongoing tensions regarding government regulation, its impact on the economy, and the perceived effectiveness of legislative solutions.
House Resolution 916
H. Res. 916Question before the chamber
The question was on the adoption of H. Res. 916, a resolution providing for the consideration of six bills under closed rules, limiting debate and amendments.
The case for
The proponent of the rule, Mr. Griffith, argued that the rule enabled the consideration of critical issues, including combating Chinese Communist Party influence in schools, providing relief to small businesses from regulatory burdens, and taking a first step to protect student-athletes' name, image, and likeness rights. He emphasized that the SCORE Act (H.R. 4312) was a necessary first step to bring national standards and fairness to college athletics, which he described as a 'Wild Wild West' without guidance. He also defended the rule's structure by noting that amendments were only submitted on three of the six bills and that Members can submit amendments regardless of formal deadlines.
The case against
The opponent of the rule, Mr. McGovern, strongly criticized the rule for being completely closed, preventing any amendments from being offered by either Democrats or Republicans. He characterized the House's operation under such rules as resembling an 'authoritarian dictatorship' and highlighted that 86 closed rules had been issued this year, blocking thousands of amendments. He argued that the bills enabled by the rule were 'pathetic' and 'meaningless' and that the House was failing to address urgent issues like skyrocketing healthcare premiums and tariffs impacting small businesses, which he claimed were being ignored in favor of 'tax breaks for billionaires'.
Disposition
Adopted · recorded vote
The resolution was agreed to, setting the terms for debate on six underlying bills.
210-209
Who is affected
- Members of Congress: Limited their ability to offer amendments and influence legislation through the regular order due to the closed nature of the rule.
- Student athletes: The rule enabled debate on a bill (H.R. 4312) intended to establish a federal framework for name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights, potentially affecting their compensation and protections.
- Small businesses: The rule enabled debate on bills (H.R. 2965, H.R. 4305) aimed at reducing regulatory burdens and providing a channel for feedback on regulations.
- Public school students and parents: The rule enabled debate on bills (H.R. 1005, H.R. 1049, H.R. 1069) concerning foreign influence and transparency in elementary and secondary education.
Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025
H.R. 2965Question before the chamber
The question was on the passage of H.R. 2965, a bill to require the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to ensure that the small business regulatory budget for a small business concern in a fiscal year is not greater than zero.
The case for
Proponents, including Mr. Williams of Texas, Ms. Van Duyne, Mr. Alford, and Mr. Schmidt, argued that the bill would alleviate the burden of overregulation on small businesses, which they claimed had been stifled by $1.8 trillion in new regulatory costs under the previous administration. They stated the bill supports President Trump's deregulatory agenda by requiring the SBA to offset new regulations with repeals of costly or outdated ones, thereby creating a 'systemic culture of regulatory discipline' and bringing transparency to regulatory actions. They asserted that reducing regulations would make goods more affordable and help small businesses grow and succeed.
The case against
Opponents, led by Ms. Velazquez, contended that the bill was an 'unworkable regulatory budget' that would limit the SBA's ability to issue necessary rules, even those with benefits outweighing costs. She cited the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) during the pandemic as an example where timely regulations were crucial. Opponents also argued that small businesses are more concerned with issues like inflation and tariffs, which the bill does not address, and that the bill lacks clarity on implementation and exceptions for national emergencies.
Disposition
Vote postponed · recorded vote
Further proceedings on the question of passage were postponed.
Who is affected
- Small businesses: The bill aims to reduce the financial and compliance burden of federal regulations, potentially freeing up resources for growth and hiring.
- Consumers: Proponents argued that reduced regulatory costs for businesses would lead to more affordable goods.
- Federal agencies (specifically SBA): The bill would impose a 'zero regulatory budget' requirement, forcing the agency to repeal existing regulations for every new one imposed.
Destroying Unnecessary, Misaligned, and Prohibitive Red Tape Act
H.R. 4305Question before the chamber
The question was on the passage of H.R. 4305, a bill to direct the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration to establish a Red Tape Hotline to receive notifications of burdensome agency rules.
The case for
Proponents, including Mr. Williams of Texas, Mr. Wied, Ms. Hageman, and Mr. Schmidt, argued that the bill would codify and strengthen the existing Red Tape Hotline, providing small businesses a direct channel to report burdensome regulations. They stated that this would empower small business owners, help the SBA Office of Advocacy hold federal agencies accountable, and provide Congress with real-world data to develop smarter regulatory policies. They emphasized that the hotline focuses on identifying problematic rules to eliminate barriers to growth, rather than preserving the status quo.
The case against
Opponents, including Ms. Velazquez and Mr. Walkinshaw, argued that the bill was unnecessary and duplicative, as a similar deregulatory hotline already exists on regulations.gov. They raised concerns about the lack of specific information regarding submissions to the existing hotline, its potential vulnerability to abuse, and the bill's focus solely on costs without considering the benefits of regulations. Opponents also criticized the bill for not addressing more pressing issues for small businesses, such as tariffs and healthcare costs.
Disposition
Vote postponed · recorded vote
Further proceedings on the question of passage were postponed.
Who is affected
- Small businesses: The bill aims to provide a formal mechanism for small businesses to report burdensome regulations, potentially leading to their reduction or elimination.
- Federal agencies (specifically SBA Office of Advocacy): The bill would codify and require the operation of the Red Tape Hotline and mandate annual reports to Congress based on its submissions.
- Congress: The bill would provide Congress with summarized data on regulatory burdens reported by small businesses, intended to inform future legislative action.
Rule Adopted for Six Bills Under Closed Terms
highThe House adopted H. Res. 916, a rule providing for the consideration of six bills: H.R. 4312, H.R. 1005, H.R. 1049, H.R. 1069, H.R. 2965, and H.R. 4305. The rule mandated that all six bills be considered under closed terms, meaning no amendments could be offered from the floor. The vote on ordering the previous question was 210-205, and the vote on adopting the resolution was 210-209.
Debate on Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act (H.R. 2965)
mediumThe House debated H.R. 2965, the Small Business Regulatory Reduction Act of 2025, which aims to require the Small Business Administration (SBA) to maintain a zero-cost regulatory budget for small businesses and report on regulatory costs. Proponents argued it would reduce burdens and support economic growth, while opponents criticized it as unworkable and insufficient to address current economic challenges like tariffs.
Debate on DUMP Red Tape Act (H.R. 4305)
mediumThe House debated H.R. 4305, the Destroying Unnecessary, Misaligned, and Prohibitive Red Tape Act, which seeks to codify and enhance the SBA Office of Advocacy's Red Tape Hotline for small businesses to report burdensome regulations. Proponents emphasized its role in gathering direct feedback and promoting accountability, while opponents argued it was duplicative of existing resources and lacked proper vetting.
Criticism of Trump Administration Policies During Floor Speeches
lowDuring morning-hour debate and one-minute speeches, several Members criticized various Trump administration policies, including the alleged dismantling of the Department of Education, restrictions on federal student loans for healthcare degrees, and the pardon of Juan Orlando Hernandez. These speeches highlighted areas of significant policy disagreement beyond the legislative items formally considered.