[Pages H2159-H2166]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 13, PROVIDING FOR
CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE
COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY RELATING
TO THE REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS UNDER THE BANK MERGER ACT; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 31, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL
OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING
TO ``REVIEW OF FINAL RULE RECLASSIFICATION OF MAJOR SOURCES AS AREA
SOURCES UNDER SECTION 112 OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT''; AND WAIVING A
REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(A) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION
OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 426 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 426

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J.
Res. 13) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of
the Department of the Treasury relating to the review of
applications under the Bank Merger Act. All points of order
against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The
joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial
Services or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to
commit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J.
Res. 31) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to
``Review of Final Rule Reclassification of Major Sources as
Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act''. All
points of order against consideration of the joint resolution
are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the joint
resolution are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2)
one motion to commit.
Sec. 3. The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on
Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived
with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of May 23, 2025, relating to a measure
providing for reconciliation pursuant to title II of H. Con.
Res. 14.

The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished 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.

{time} 1215

General Leave

Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 426 provides for
consideration of S.J. Res. 13 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of
debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, or their
designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.
Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 31
under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, or their designees. It provides for one motion to
commit.
Finally, the rule provides for the flexibility to consider a rule
related to reconciliation on the same day it is reported from the Rules
Committee in order to expeditiously enact President Trump's agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the
underlying legislation.
The rule before us presents an important opportunity for Congress to
continue its work to reverse the last-minute attempts at regulatory
overreach by the former Biden-Harris administration.
The rule includes consideration of S.J. 13, to provide for
congressional disapproval of a Biden-era Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency regulation titled ``Business Combinations Under the Bank
Merger Act.''
In September of 2024, the OCC and the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, FDIC, revised their approach to evaluating bank merger
applications. The updated rule restricts a bank's ability to scale,
manage risk effectively, and broaden product offerings, ultimately
discouraging mergers altogether.
By dismantling a longstanding standard, and eliminating automatic
approval for certain applications, the Biden administration's actions
risk stifling competition and innovation in the financial sector. These
changes will delay strategic decisionmaking among financial
institutions and limit access to innovative financial services for
everyday Americans.
For small- and mid-sized banks in particular, the rule imposes
additional red tape and bureaucratic hurdles that hinder their ability
to merge and compete with larger financial institutions. Despite what
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may claim, the Biden
administration's rule strengthens the dominance of the largest market
players while undermining smaller, community-focused institutions,
limiting consumer choice and consumer access.
We should strive for a regulatory environment that is streamlined,
balanced, and rooted in practical oversight, one that protects
consumers without obstructing innovation and competition. What we don't
need are more Biden-era regulations that distort the market and smother
opportunity with overreach.
S.J. Res. 13 will ensure that future bank regulators cannot repeat
this ill-conceived rulemaking, and that financial institutions can
continue to make strategic, innovative decisions that will ultimately
benefit American consumers.
Also, the rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 31, providing
for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Biden EPA
relating to review of final rule classification of major sources as
area sources under the Clean Air Act.
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act lays out stringent compliance
standards for facilities emitting over 10 tons of a single hazardous
air pollutant, or 25 tons of an aggregate. Facilities below those
thresholds are classified as area sources and subject to more flexible
requirements.
In 2020, under President Trump, the EPA adopted a more rational
approach allowing facilities that significantly reduced their emissions
to be reclassified as area sources. This commonsense change rewarded
emissions improvements and reduced unnecessary regulatory burdens on
American manufacturers and energy producers.
To no one's surprise, the Biden administration reversed course by
reimposing the outdated and rigid ``once in, always in'' policy. This
framework permanently locks facilities into strict major-source status,
even if they make substantial efforts to reduce harmful emissions. That
is not only unfair, it discourages environmental progress.
Whom did the Biden administration hurt?
They hurt the chemical manufacturing sector, which includes thousands
of mid-sized companies representing hundreds of thousands of jobs.
These companies have invested millions in cleaner technologies and
equipment upgrades. Under this Biden-era EPA rule, their investments
will not be rewarded with a lighter regulatory touch. In fact, despite
upgrades

[[Page H2160]]

to reduce emissions, they will continue to face the same higher
regulatory costs.
Moreover, there is the pulp and paper industry, a critical employer
in States like Georgia, Wisconsin, and Maine. Mills that switch to
cleaner fuels or have implemented advanced scrubber systems will
receive no regulatory relief under the Biden-era EPA's ``once in,
always in'' rule. In a sector that already faces stiff foreign
competition and very narrow margins, the Biden administration heaped
further unnecessary burdens onto this industry, jeopardizing the jobs
of thousands of American workers in the process.
Additionally, there is the independent and smaller scale refiner that
often lack the scale of larger competitors but serve critical regional
fuel markets. They may have made substantial environmental progress in
reducing hazardous air pollutant emissions, but the Biden-era ``once
in, always in'' rule locks them into compliance regimes that do not
reflect their improved emissions profile.
Finally, let's not forget our small and rural manufacturing
facilities in communities across this country, including in my own
district in New York's southern tier. These facilities include metal
fabricators and food processors, many of whom have taken proactive
steps to cut emissions in very good faith. Under the Biden-era EPA
``once in, always in'' rule, these improvements to reduce hazardous
emissions do not matter. They will still be treated with the same
costly and burdensome regulatory regime. Simply put, the Biden EPA and
its ``once in, always in'' rule not only disincentivizes innovation and
cleaner operations, but it also threatens plant closures and kills
jobs.
Mr. Speaker, you would have to be more concerned with appeasing
environmental extremists than protecting American workers to support
this punitive and counterproductive regulatory framework.
Through S.J. Res. 31, House Republicans stand up for the American
workers and job creators. The CRA, ensures regulatory fairness and
restores real incentives for emissions reduction. Without this CRA,
even the most environmentally responsible facilities are punished,
trapped under heavyhanded rules that do not reflect their cleaner
operation.
Upon returning to office, President Trump and House Republicans
focused on restoring commonsense governance: prioritizing American
jobs, economic strength, and practical solutions. S.J. Res. 31, like
other measures undoing ill-advised Biden-era policies, represents a
decisive step in the right direction.
Let's get back to smart, forward-thinking policies that actually
serve the American people, not far left activists and D.C. bureaucrats.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today for a rule on two measures, two lousy
measures doubling down on the Republicans' agenda to help big banks and
big polluters.
S.J. Res. 13 is a gift-wrapped giveaway to Wall Street, plain and
simple. It would make it easier for big banks to get even bigger,
hurting small businesses and communities in the process.
S.J. Res. 31 is even worse, a blatant handout to big polluters,
putting corporate profits ahead of our constituents' health and safety.
This isn't new, Mr. Speaker. That has been the Republican playbook
all Congress long: Help the polluters. Help the banks. Help Wall
Street, and help the CEOs. They want to help everyone except the
working people who actually need it.
Mr. Speaker, you may ask: Why?
I would say: Follow the money. Look at the donations.
One of the things we need to get serious about in this Congress and
hopefully when Democrats take control of the House after the next
election, this will be a priority, and that is campaign finance reform.
All this excessive money from big industries, from big banks, from
corporations, and from people like Elon Musk pollute this Chamber in a
way where the needs and the wants of regular people get put to the
side.
It is disgraceful, if we are being honest here, Mr. Speaker. As bad
as these two bills are--and I can't emphasize enough that they are
really bad--they are just the warm-up act. In fact, this is filler. We
weren't even supposed to be dealing with these bills. We were supposed
to be dealing with the budget reconciliation bill. Mr. Speaker, because
of the disarray within the Republican Conference, all of a sudden,
these bills appeared.
That is because in just over 13 hours, Mr. Speaker, the House Rules
Committee will meet starting at 1 o'clock in the morning to debate a
bill that steals from the American people so they can help out the
billionaire donors who write them big checks.
Now, let me ask: If this bill is so great, so big, and so beautiful
as Donald Trump says it is, then why the hell are we debating it in the
middle of the night?
Why not debate it in broad daylight where the American people can
tune in and hear what it is really about?
We all know the answer.
I encourage the American people to pay attention to what is happening
very, very, very early in the morning here in the United States
Capitol. Watch what happens in the Rules Committee at 1 o'clock in the
morning.
To all the insomniacs out there: Tune in at 1 o'clock in the morning
and watch what unfolds in that committee. Republicans do not want you
to pay attention to their tax scam.
Hell, Trump doesn't even want Republicans to pay attention to what is
in this bill. Mr. Speaker, he told you guys to close your eyes and vote
for this garbage.
Republicans were ordered not to say a word in committee, just fall in
line and rubber-stamp it.
Now listen to this: Now they are sneaking a change into the rules
buried in the fine print of this rule to give themselves same-day
authority to bring the bill to the floor with a moment's notice. This
bill is over 1,000 pages long.
They want to ram it through the Rules Committee, potentially changing
it, and we know that there are changes coming, and then vote on it just
hours later. It is a bill that adds trillions to the deficit and kicks
millions of people off their healthcare.
Republicans once bragged about requiring 72 hours to review
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, do you remember that?
Now Republicans are ready to toss that promise in the trash to serve
Trump's demands.

If my colleagues in the Freedom Caucus vote for this rule, then they
will have reached a new height of hypocrisy. It is unbelievable to me
that they cry and whine about passing bills without the time to read
them, and then they come down here and support ramming a bill through
committee in the middle of the night and bringing it straight to the
floor.
It is unbelievable and hypocritical.
Let's be real, Mr. Speaker. This budget reconciliation bill is a
disaster. It is unpopular, and it is indefensible. This is all about
massive and huge tax breaks to billionaires paid for by stealing from
working Americans. That is not hyperbole. That is just the truth. It
rips away Medicaid from parents and grandparents. It slashes food
assistance for children. The biggest cut in food assistance in history
is contained in this bill. It drains resources from the moms and dads
all to fund giveaways for those at the very, very top.
Any backroom deals made in the next few hours to twist arms and to
buy votes will only make this terrible bill even worse.
This is not what democracy looks like. This is what corruption looks
like. Shame on every single person who votes to advance that awful
process by torching any semblance of a fair process.
A vote for this rule is a vote to allow Republican leadership to jam
this bill through the House without enough time to even read it. There
is zero transparency and zero respect for this institution or the
Members here. Just close your eyes and vote for it. That is what Trump
told Republicans to do: Close your eyes and vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve a hell of a lot better than
this rushed, reckless process. They deserve leaders who work for them,
not for the billionaires.

[[Page H2161]]

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wied). Members are reminded to direct
their remarks to the Chair.

{time} 1230

Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the budget reconciliation bill is the work of 11
committees that have gone through full markup, that went through the
full bipartisan process.
I sat through 27 hours in the Energy and Commerce Committee. I know
full well that I had a front seat to the longest markup, just as my
colleague did with his service on the Agriculture Committee.
That is not what we are here debating. Despite what some of my
colleagues across the aisle are saying, the CRA that we are discussing
right now is addressing standards for major and area sources that will
actually promote cleaner and more environmentally conscious operations
among manufacturers, refiners, and energy producers.
The rule implemented by the Biden administration reflects a flawed
approach, one that eliminates incentives for voluntary emission
reductions and imposes excessive regulatory burdens without delivering
clear environmental benefits.
Under this policy, facilities that successfully reduce their actual
or potential hazardous air pollutant emissions below the major source
threshold are still prohibited from reclassifying as area sources. This
means that even after substantial improvements, these facilities remain
subject to the strictest and costliest regulatory framework forever,
indefinitely.
This not only increases operational costs but also removes a key
incentive for companies to invest in cleaner technologies and
practices, something we should all be encouraging.
For example, take a chemical plant that emits hazardous air
pollutants like benzene or formaldehyde. Under the Biden-era rule, if
they invest millions in cutting-edge emissions control systems that
reduce their pollution below the regulatory threshold, they get no
relief from the major source permitting burdens.
The Biden-era rule entangles them in permanent red tape, discouraging
innovation and undermining progress.
Under the Trump-era rules that S.J. Res. 31 would pave the way for,
companies would have a financial incentive to invest in pollution
control since doing so would actually reduce their compliance costs and
regulatory delays. The result is cleaner air, a cleaner environment.
The reality is that most of these companies and the people who run
them live in the very communities affected by emissions. They have
every reason to care about cleaner air and healthier environments.
What they need is smart, flexible policy, not arbitrary and
capricious restrictions that stifle growth and reduce competitiveness.
S.J. Res. 31 would restore a proven framework that recognizes and
rewards emissions reduction. It allows regulatory classifications to
reflect a facility's current environmental impact, not a legacy status
based on past emissions.
This flexibility fosters continuous improvement and aligns
environmental goals with economic incentives. This is not about
weakening protections. It is the contrary, actually. It is about
applying regulation in a way that actually works, delivering clean air,
encouraging innovation, and maintaining the strength of America's
industry.
Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense path forward to a cleaner, more
sustainable future, one that supports jobs, growth, and the
environment.
This should be a no-brainer for my colleagues who claim to be the
champions of effective environmental policy. Let's not be fooled by
their rhetoric. The reality is that many on the other side of the aisle
are beholden to a vocal and uncompromising wing of the environmental
lobby, groups that would rather see American workers laid off,
manufacturing plants shut down, and entire communities economically
gutted than support balanced, commonsense regulatory reforms.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just a couple of things. First of all, I want to correct
the record. The gentleman said that this budget reconciliation bill
reflects a full, fair, and open process in all the committees of
jurisdiction. I hate to tell him, but I am on the Agriculture
Committee, and the chairman actually cut off debate when there were
dozens of amendments still yet to be offered. That is not a full, open,
and fair process. Maybe by Republican standards it is, but by most
people's standards, it isn't.
The gentleman is on the Rules Committee. We are debating the rule, so
I have a question for my Rules Committee colleague. This rule contains
a fast-track process for the Republican tax scam, this so-called budget
reconciliation bill. We all know that deals are being made behind
closed doors, changes are still being negotiated--big changes, we are
told. I would like to know if the majority will commit to ensuring a
Congressional Budget Office score is available on the final bill before
it moves forward.
We need to know the impact on our constituents, not only how much it
will cost, but how many people will lose their healthcare and how
quickly they will lose their healthcare.
Those are legitimate questions that, quite frankly, Democrats not
only want to know but Republicans should want to know, as well.
Can I get the gentleman to kind of give us some assurances that we
know the impact? Will he commit to ensuring a Congressional Budget
Office score is available on the final bill before it moves forward?
I am happy to yield to him.
I guess we are not going to get an answer.
I mean, I guess we all know why they don't want the nonpartisan,
expert analysis to be made available before a vote on this bill. This
vote is a monstrosity. This vote is going to throw at least 14 million
people off their healthcare. This is going to constitute the largest
cut in food assistance in history. People are going to see their
nutrition benefits reduced, which will impact children, senior
citizens, veterans, and those with disabilities.
It is relevant to what we are talking about here today because in
this rule you provide the authority to immediately bring the budget
reconciliation bill to the floor without giving people any time to
debate the bill, to be able to analyze the bill, for CBO to do their
work on this, or for us to even know what the impact is going to be on
our constituents from something this big.
By the way, I hear Republicans say that they have this deadline.
There is no deadline. There is nothing magic about having to pass this
bill by tomorrow or the next day.
You could do this right. You could actually have a Rules Committee
hearing in markup in the light of day. You could do it when you come
back after the Memorial Day recess.
People should ask the question: Why are they rushing so quickly? Why
are they doing everything they can to jam this through before people
have a chance to understand the full impacts of this bill?
The reason why is that they don't want the American people to know
what they are doing. They are ashamed of what is in this bill--again,
throwing people off healthcare, throwing people off food assistance.
Why? It is to give a tax cut to billionaires. Give me a break.
We are here to help lift up people in this country, to be there for
people who are struggling. Instead, this Republican Congress is about
enriching those who are well-off and well-connected.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot of dramatic words from my friend
and colleague across the aisle about the reconciliation process. Let's
take a moment to remind them of what they did when they were in the
majority.
During the 117th Congress, when a Democratic-led House considered the
last reconciliation bill, also known as the Build Back Better Act, the
process was a little messy, to say the least. The gentleman talks about
CBO scores, and it is certainly something that we are working very hard
on.

[[Page H2162]]

Mr. McGovern, in a meeting on November 4, 2021, was reading the
manager's amendment to be self-executed. His response to not having a
CBO score was:

I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will do
everything they can to slow this process down. I will also
assure the gentleman, as he knows, that this cannot become
law and will not move forward in the Senate without a CBO
score, and that will have to happen.

Regardless if we do have a JTC score or a CBO score or what that
score says, I don't think any of my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle will vote for this bill at the end of the day.
People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones here.
In fact, this process on their side of the aisle was so messy that
two separate rules had to be passed out of the Rules Committee, each
one self-executing a new manager's amendment as negotiations were
ongoing and changes continued to be made. It was constantly a shifting
landscape and, frankly, chaos at times.
I know that the gentleman from Massachusetts won't let facts get in
the way of a good story. He pounds the table over the use of same-day
authority. The reality is that the first rule for Build Back Better
extended what is essentially a martial law procedural lockdown of the
House floor, granting broad, same-day authority that allowed the
majority to jam through changes without proper scrutiny.
Let's not forget the second rule for that bill was brought to the
floor and voted on the very same day. It was reported from the Rules
Committee, exactly the kind of tactic our colleagues are now clutching
their pearls while opposing.
The fact is that governing is hard. The process is rarely a smooth
one, but the American people elected President Trump, a Republican
majority in the House of Representatives, and a Republican majority in
the United States Senate, and gave us unified government with a clear
expectation for Congress to deliver on this agenda.
The Rules Committee will continue to use the tools at its disposal to
facilitate the passage of historic legislation, just as our colleagues
did when they were in charge.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am really confused after listening to the gentleman
from New York complain about same-day authority. In this bill, the
Republicans put in same-day authority to be able to jam this tax scam
through.
The gentleman didn't answer my question. I guess he is basically
saying that, no, the Republicans will not commit to a CBO score for
people to be able to know what, in fact, the bill will do and the
impacts the bill will have.
I mean, this bill is so awful that I can't imagine any Democrat
voting for it, but it is so awful that I would like to think some
Republicans who have a conscience wouldn't vote for it either.
I would like to think it would matter to Republicans that 14 million
Americans will lose their healthcare. What if that number went up to 20
million or 30 million? Is there any number that will be so high that
maybe some Republicans might pause and say, wait a minute, maybe we
should not go down this road? I mean, this is crazy.
By the way, the difference in legislation that we are talking about,
the Build Back Better bill, I remind the gentleman, was about helping
people. This bill is about screwing people. There is a difference here.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 2753, the Hands Off Medicaid and
SNAP Act, which would block the Republican budget from cutting Medicaid
or SNAP benefits and kicking people off these lifesaving programs.
While we vote on two measures that would give even more power to big
banks and large industrial polluters, Republicans are trying to jam
their multitrillion-dollar budget scam down our throats in the dead of
night by holding a hearing at 1 o'clock in the morning in the Rules
Committee, hoping the American people won't notice.
Shame on my Republican colleagues.
The American people are noticing, and they are pissed off that
working families are going to have to foot the bill for massive tax
cuts for multimillionaires, wealthy heirs, and corporations.
Republicans claim they don't want to cut critical benefits for
working people. I have heard many of you do press conferences and sign
on to letters. Now, here is the chance to prove it by voting for my
amendment to bring up the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Boyle) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member
for yielding time to discuss our proposal.
Late Sunday night, the House Budget Committee, on which I serve as
ranking member, passed out, with only Republican votes, a draconian tax
bill that cuts almost 14 million Americans off their healthcare and
ensures a few million more lose their food assistance.
You might ask yourself why. The reason is, in order to help pay for
tax cuts for billionaires.
Interestingly, we were originally supposed to pass this on Friday,
but on Friday, around lunchtime, enough hard-line conservative members
on the Budget Committee withheld their votes and voted ``no,'' not
because they objected to 14 million Americans losing their healthcare,
not because they objected to millions more losing their food
assistance, but because they looked at those numbers and said: Well,
that is a good start.

{time} 1245

We want those numbers to go up. We want even more people to lose
their healthcare and more people to lose their food assistance.
The vote went down Friday. We come back Sunday night, and suddenly
the vote is called again. I raised the question as a parliamentary
inquiry. I simply asked: What has changed? What deals have been made?
The American people deserve to know. We, as Members, on both sides of
the aisle, deserve to know before casting our votes.
I was assured that nothing had changed. There were no agreements
made.
Then the very next Republican speaker, who is one of those hard-line
conservatives, gave the game away and said he was flipping his vote
because of the agreements that were made. Backroom deals deny the
American people the transparency that they deserve.
One of the things we keep hearing on the other side of the aisle is
that we need to get this done, otherwise taxes will go up on the
American people. Apparently, the President said that today while he was
here in this building. It is completely false.
Just this past week, Democrats introduced an amendment that would
ensure the extension of the tax cuts for every American making under a
billion dollars. Every Democrat voted yes. Every Republican voted no.
This really is about the tax cuts for billionaires.
Now, the President has also said: he would ``love and cherish
Medicaid.''
My Republican friends, all of those included who have said that they
would protect Medicaid, they have an opportunity to prove it. Right now
at the well of the House Chamber is a discharge petition that would
force a vote on my legislation, the Hands Off Medicaid and SNAP Act. It
would stop permanently these outrageous cuts from happening. It would
preserve healthcare.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it would ensure these cuts do
not happen. Right now we have 211 signatures, all from Democrats. We
just need a few Republican Members to sign that discharge petition, and
we will be able to love and cherish Medicaid as well as SNAP. That is
all it would take, just a few Republican Members to save healthcare for
millions and millions of Americans and save food assistance for
millions more.

[[Page H2163]]

I think it is clear, Mr. Speaker, the difference in priorities
between this side of the aisle and the other side. It is the Members on
this side of the aisle that are fighting to save healthcare for the
American people, and it is our friends on the other side of the aisle
who are fighting for the billionaire class.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle, they love to
cherry-pick the facts when it comes to the timing of committee
proceedings, especially in reference to the Rules Committee's upcoming
meeting. They bemoan the late start and the timing of tonight's
meeting. Yet, they actively ensured one committee markup after another
for the legislation before us tonight, they ran hours and hours, if not
days on end.
Why did those markups run as long as they did? They ran that long
because Democrats engaged in the legislative process, which is their
right.
The same principle applies to the Rules Committee. On this committee
we have a long tradition of meeting late into the evening to complete
our work. This isn't new, and it is not unique to our current majority.
It is simply how the legislative process operates when the House has
its full agenda.
We need only look at the Committee's operations under Democratic
control to see a long history of meetings in the dark of night. Under
Democratic control of the Rules Committee, we have seen things like
House Resolution 587, which the report was filed at 3:46 a.m. House
Resolution 481, the report was filed at 2:09 a.m. House Resolution 597,
the report was filed at 3:43 a.m. House Resolution 903, the report was
filed at 2:25 a.m. For House Resolution 445 in the 116th Congress, the
Committee adjourned at 12:20 a.m.
Late-night sessions are not partisan anomalies and unique to the
Democrats. These are precedents that Democrats themselves have
maintained for years.
Let's be clear, this is the way the Rules Committee has operated when
necessary, regardless of which party holds the gavel. It is about
getting the work done. In fact, tonight we may not be reporting in the
dark of night at all but rather as the new day has begun. I expect Mr.
McGovern to take full advantage of our unlimited debate rules in the
Rules Committee to make sure that that happens, and I see my second
sunrise in a couple of weeks here.
I invite my colleagues to set aside the theatrics and focus on the
work at hand, and I encourage my colleagues on the other side to prove
me wrong.
Once again, my colleagues across the aisle are doing what they do
best. They spread misinformation, and they try to sow fear into the
hearts of the most vulnerable in this country about Republicans' work
through the budget reconciliation process.
Let's set the record straight. President Trump and House Republicans
are working to strengthen and secure and sustain Medicaid.
Democrats, through their reckless spending and unwillingness to enact
commonsense guardrails themselves, have worked to undermine this
critical program. We are laser-focused on protecting the absolute most
vulnerable among us, Americans with disabilities, pregnant women,
children, and our beloved seniors, by putting in place commonsense
guardrails to ensure that those truly in need always get the care that
they deserve. That means making sure that precious Medicaid resources
go to the living, breathing Americans who actually need the care, not
bureaucratic bloat, fraud, or people that have come into this country
illegally and have been put on this system.

We are also ensuring Medicaid's long-term sustainability by rolling
past costly Biden-era regulations that are driving up the program's
price tag by hundreds of billions of dollars.
Let's be clear, Medicaid should always serve American citizens first
and foremost, and that is why reinforcing citizenship verification,
another commonsense step that the American people believe in, not only
protects the program but saves the taxpayers tens of billions of
dollars.
Yes, we are, reintroducing Clinton-era work requirements. One of the
most popular things Bill Clinton achieved in his Presidency, and he
worked with Congress to get it done, was bringing commonsense work
requirements to social welfare programs.
It would only apply to able-bodied adults without dependents. It is
something that we should all be able to agree on. If you can work, you
should work. It is a step that was once broadly bipartisan, but today,
our Democratic colleagues would rather let Medicaid spiral into
insolvency with no solution in sight than support a basic principle
that if you are able to work, you should.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard noise from across the aisle, words
like ``cruel'' and ``harsh,'' and all the hyperbole you could expect to
be thrown around to score political points from their base. Let me be
clear. Those labels belong not to those fighting for reform but to
those who would refuse commonsense changes today and instead allow this
critical safety net program to become fiscally unsustainable, leaving
behind the very people that depend on it every single day.
If we want Medicaid to be there in its entirety for the next
generation, for those that truly need us, who we need to be working for
every day, we must act now. House Republicans are committed to doing
just that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, first of all, can the gentleman name for
me one meeting that the Rules Committee had, when Democrats were in
control, where the hearing portion began at 1 o'clock in the morning?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York for the purpose
of a colloquy.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I didn't serve then, so I am not sure.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thought he was intimating that that was
the case. I don't know of a single meeting where we began taking
testimony--we may have reported out Rules late at night, but not taking
testimony.
Mr. Speaker, and, secondly, let me just say, with all due respect, I
don't view it as theatrics to stand up for people's healthcare and food
assistance. I feel that that is my job.
If Republicans think that somehow people are not going to be
adversely impacted, read the CBO score on the current draft of the
bill. Again, it is going to get worse.
On the current draft of the bill we are told because of the changes
in this bill and because of the inaction by Republicans, CBO estimates
right now 14 million Americans will lose their healthcare. That is not
me. That is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Republicans
rely on that. Democrats rely on that. By saying somehow that people
aren't going to be adversely impacted by the cuts in nutrition, I don't
think you understand the nutrition title if that is what you believe.
Under this bill, if a mother of a 7-year-old loses her job, for
whatever reason, she has 3 months to find a new job. Otherwise, she
loses her food assistance.
You have lowered the age of when work requirements are mandatory, and
it is a cruel thing to do because this is about children. I don't know,
but if you are a single parent and you have got a 7-year-old--by the
way, some schools end the day at 2 or 2:30. How do you pay for
childcare? How do you try to make ends meet? What about the summer
vacation when school is not in session?
My Republican friends are so in the pockets of billionaires and the
well-off and the well-connected, I don't think they know what real life
is like for so many people in this country, how difficult it is.
When we talk about programs like SNAP, I have a news flash for you.
The majority of people on SNAP who are able to work, work. They earn so
little they still qualify for the benefit.
By the way, the benefit is on average of about $2 per person per
meal. You can't buy a cup of coffee in the United States Capitol
Complex for $2.
Then what my friends don't talk about is how this is shifting some of
the cost burdens on to States. All of a sudden States are going to be
required to come up with hundreds of millions and, in some cases,
billions of dollars in order to prevent people from losing their food
assistance.
Who does that? Who does that, all while giving tax breaks to
billionaires?

[[Page H2164]]

It just makes no sense to me. All we are asking for--and I think some
Republicans may agree with me on this--is before you bring the bill to
the floor--and I appreciate the gentleman saying that there will be a
CBO score by the time it gets through the Senate--don't House Members
deserve to know what the hell they are voting on before they vote on
it?
We ought to insist that we all go into this with our eyes wide open,
so that we know, in fact, what the impact is going to be on our
constituents. I don't think that is a radical thing to demand or to ask
for. Yet, my Republican friends seem to think that that is unrealistic.
This bill is going to need major changes for me to even take another
look at it and show the priorities don't represent my values. We don't
share the same values. It is clear when I look at this bill.
The bottom line is the process right now and what is relevant to this
rule that we are debating right now. My friends on the other side put
in same-day rule authority to expedite this so people won't even have
adequate time to find out how it impacts their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we had to go and do a little research, but in the 110th
Congress on August 1, 2007, when considering House Resolution 3162, the
Democrats did indeed convene a Rules Committee meeting at 1 a.m., and
they gaveled out at 3:07 a.m.
They have done exactly the same thing that we have all heard about,
the ranting and raving and the waving of arms here today. What is good
for the goose is good for the gander. However, rules for thee and not
for me is typically the way this works.
We will do the work of the Rules Committee. We will continue to pass
this legislation and deliver real relief for working families in this
country. We have listened to a lot of rhetoric about millionaires and
billionaires. It sounds like Bernie Sanders is in the Chamber, but
really this is about the working people of this country.
If we do nothing and the tax cuts expire in this country, it will be
a $4.5 trillion tax increase on the American people. It will cut the
child tax credit in half. It will cut the standard deduction in half
that puts real money into the pockets of working families. In my
district, it is about $1,700 a month that the current Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act delivers. We deliver even more in this reconciliation package.
That might not sound like a lot to some of the people on the other
side of the aisle. For my constituents, that is a couple of mortgage
payments. That means real relief for working families in western New
York.

{time} 1300

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let's set the record straight. I have to go back and
look 20 years ago? Yet, I can say this: Democrats never ever did
anything like Republicans are doing here today, never. I don't even
remember, and maybe the gentleman could enlighten us what the bill was.
Yet, on a major budget reconciliation bill, the majority is jamming
this through? It is going to add to the deficit. It is going to throw
people off of food assistance. It is going to throw people off of
healthcare assistance.
That is not me saying that. That is the Congressional Budget Office
saying it. Nothing like this has ever been done. Nothing like this has
ever been done, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
doing it with a straight face as if it is no big deal. It is as if who
cares if people lose their food assistance.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman talks about that if we don't do something,
taxes will be increased. The reason why taxes are going to be increased
is because when my friends passed this tax bill when Trump was last in
office, the majority made all the tax cuts for middle-class families
temporary. They all expired. Mr. Speaker, do you know what Republicans
didn't make temporary? The tax breaks for corporations; those are
permanent. Those are permanent, and that says it all there. That is the
difference between the two parties, it is that I think we have
different priorities. We have a different set of values.
Mr. Speaker, I am really deeply concerned about those who will go
without food, and I am deeply concerned about those who will go without
healthcare. Those are my priorities. I am sorry it makes the gentleman
and the Republicans uncomfortable, but that is where I am coming from.
I don't give a damn about whether Elon Musk gets another tax break or
not. Maybe my friends do because he poured so much money into the last
campaign. Again, that is why we need campaign finance reform. We need
to get this place to focus in on what regular people are concerned
about and not what billionaires and corporations are concerned about.
Mr. Speaker, before Republicans try to cut Medicaid and SNAP benefits
in the dead of night, I should also point out that the majority is
giving gifts to big polluters in broad daylight.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a
letter signed by nearly 100 public health and environmental
organizations laying out the extreme risks of increased incidence of
cancer and birth defects if S.J. Res. 31 is enacted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.

May 20, 2025.
All Members,
United States House of Representatives,
The Capitol, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the undersigned
organizations, we urge you to oppose S.J. Res. 31, a joint
resolution providing for disapproval under the Congressional
Review Act (``CRA'') of a rule submitted by the Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA'') titled ``Review of Final Rule
Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.'' We base our opposition on
two grounds: (i) the rule it would overturn is a crucial tool
to protect the American public from some of the most toxic
air pollutants; and (ii) using the CRA to legislate in this
space would create profound regulatory uncertainty and would
throw the Federal government's ability to protect the public
from highly toxic airborne pollution dangerously into doubt.

I. THE ENACTMENT OF S.J. RES. 31 WOULD JEOPARDIZE PUBLIC HEALTH

The The Clean Air Act requires EPA to regulate emissions of
some of the most toxic air pollution--including lead,
mercury, arsenic, benzene, and metals, which are dangerous in
fractions of ounces and are known to cause cancer, birth
defects, and other serious maladies--as ``hazardous air
pollutants'' (``HAPs''). Facilities that have the potential
to emit 10 tons per year of any one HAP, or 25 tons per year
of any combination of HAPs, are treated as ``major sources''
of toxic air pollution. ``Major sources,'' such as chemical
plants, are subject to maximum achievable control technology
(``MACT'') standards, which are based on the attainment of
emissions levels already achieved by the best-controlled
sources in the industry.
For decades, EPA policy (known colloquially as ``once in,
always in'') required that ``major sources'' that had
complied with MACT standards and lowered their HAP levels
must continue doing so--even if, after compliance, their
total HAP emissions were reduced to levels below the ``major
source'' threshold. That sensible approach was displaced in
2020 by an ill-considered rule (the ``2020 Rule'') that would
have upended this practice. Fortunately, that misguided
effort was curtailed in part in 2024 by the rule presently in
S.J. Res. 31's crosshairs (the ``2024 Rule''), which ensured
that facilities emitting seven of the 187 most dangerous
pollutants (``super-toxics'') covered by the Clean Air Act
remain subject to strict pollution controls.
The 2020 Rule allowed nearly 50 percent of ``major source''
facilities (approximately 4,000 in total) across the nation
to increase their emissions of some of the most dangerous air
pollution regulated by the Clean Air Act overnight, and with
no guaranteed monitoring or reporting. The 2024 Rule prevents
some of the most harmful increases enabled by the 2020 Rule,
even as it retains that rule. Should S.J. Res. 31 be enacted,
and the 2024 Rule struck down--without a clear answer as to
what the state of regulatory affairs would be in S.J. Res.
31's aftermath--the threats to public health could be
devastating. In short, the door could open for the air we
breathe to be contaminated at an unprecedented rate by some
of the most toxic air pollution that Congress has identified.
These super-toxics cause, among other things. cancer,
developmental disorders, and neurological problems even at
extremely low levels of exposure.
This should be reason enough to vote ``no'' on S.J. Res.
31, but there is further cause to oppose this misbegotten
bill.

[[Page H2165]]

ii. the cra is an inappropriate tool for repealing the 2024 rule.

We do not contend that the 2024 Rule is the perfect tool
for the regulation of ``major sources'' of HAPs. We would
advocate for a rule that provides even stronger protections
for public health; we recognize that certain industry actors,
more interested in ameliorating costs, would argue the
opposite. Regardless of one's stance, however, there should
be universal agreement that using the CRA to set the 2024
Rule aside is a mistake--and, potentially, a dangerous one.
First, it is uncertain what the ultimate regulatory state
of play will become if the 2024 Rule is set aside using the
blunt-force instrument that is the CRA. If the answer is that
the 2020 Rule would occupy the field, that rule still is the
subject of unresolved litigation currently held in abeyance.
Might we revert to the longstanding ``once in, always in''
policy if the 2020 Rule ultimately is struck down? If not, a
regulatory vacuum would ensue that would, at a minimum, take
time to fill--time that the public's welfare cannot afford,
as emissions of the most highly toxic air pollutants would be
allowed to increase across the country. Either way, it is
clear that this use of the CRA is a terrible gamble when it
comes to protecting the air we breathe.
Second, use of the CRA to strike down the 2024 Rule may
prevent further similar regulation, including regulatory
efforts that may be undertaken by the present administration.
The CRA provides that rules disapproved under its auspices
cannot be replaced by ``a new rule that is substantially the
same'' as the one struck down. The scope of this prohibition
is essentially untested and could pave the way for a less--or
more--protective future rulemaking when it comes to the
reclassification of ``major sources.'' The problem is, no one
can be sure. Moreover, such a bar on new regulation may not
be contestable in court, given the CRA's proscription on the
judicial review of determinations made pursuant to the
statute. Thus, we could be left with a regulatory landscape
that leaves the public wholly unprotected--or perhaps even
one that the present administration views as unpalatable--and
find ourselves stuck in place. This is an unthinkable risk to
assume when it comes to the regulation of the Clean Air Act's
most toxic air pollution and the health of the American
people.
In short, whether you support the rule that it targets or
not, you must oppose S.J. Res. 31. It is a perilous
legislative half-measure in an area that requires serious
deliberation and responsible lawmaking, and it cannot be
permitted to proceed.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Air Alliance Houston; Alliance for Mission-Based Recycling;
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments; American Lung
Association; American Public Health Association; American
Thoracic Society; Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America;
Bend the Curve; Between the Waters; Breathe Project; Center
for Biological Diversity; Center for Coalfield Justice;
Center for Environmental Health; Center for Oil & Gas
Organizing; Cherokee Concerned Citizens.
Cherokee Concerned Citizens Pascagoula, MS; Children's
Environmental Health Network; Church Women United; Citizens
for Arsenal Accountability; Clean 4 Change, Kentucky; Clean
Air Action Network of Glen Falls; Clean Air Coalition of
Greater Ravena-Coeymans; Clean Air Council; Clean Water
Action; Climate Action Campaign; Climate Conservation
Brazoria County; Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety;
Defend Our Health; Del Amp Action Committee; Earth Ethics.
Earthjustice Action; Eco Madres; ecoAmerica/Climate for
Health Environmental Protection Network; Eco-Cycle; Ecology
Center (Michigan); Environmental Advocates; Environmental
Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform;
Environmental Law and Policy Center; Environmental Watch NJ;
Environmental Watch NY; Eureka Recycling; FracTracker
Alliance; FreshWater Accountability Project; Friends of
the Earth; Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives
(GAIA).
Good Neighbor Steering Committee of Benicia; Greenpeace
USA; Health Care Without Harm; Hip Hop Caucus; International
Society for Environmental Epidemiology North America Chapter;
Iowa Environmental Council; Just Zero; League of Conservation
Voters; Los Jardines Institute; Louisiana Just Recovery
Network; Micah 6:8 Mission; Mid-Ohio Valley Climate Action;
Milwaukee Riverkeeper; Moms Clean Air Force; Natural
Resources Defense Council.
Neighbors for Clean Air; North American Climate,
Conservation and Environment (NACCE); Oncology Advocates
United for Climate and Health; Partnership for Policy
Integrity; People Over Petro Coalition; Physicians for Social
Responsibility; Physicians for Social Responsibility
Pennsylvania; Plastic Free Future; Plastic Pollution
Coalition; Recycle Hawaii; Resource Renewal Institute; Rio
Grande International Study Center; RiSE for Environmental
Justice; RISE St James; Safer States.
San Antonio Bay Estuarine Waterkeeper; Santa Cruz Climate
Action Network; Seneca Lake Guardian; Sierra Club; SOBE
Concerned Citizens Youngstown, Ohio; Social Eco Education
(SEE); Society of Native Nations; Southern Environmental Law
Center; Southwest Detroit Environmental Vision; Terra
Advocati; The Last Plastic Straw; The Story of Stuff Project;
Turtle Island Restoration Network; Union of Concerned
Scientists; Unite North Metro Denver; Utah Physicians for a
Healthy Environment; Vessel Project; WEACT for Environmental
Justice; West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs;
350.org; 5 Gyres Institute.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the truth is that Republicans have
betrayed the middle class of this country time after time after time.
We are seeing that today with the CRA measures that uplift big banks
and big polluters at the expense of our health, safety, and economic
security.
Does anybody think that big banks need more help, that we want big
banks to get even bigger, and we want big banks to swallow up community
banks? I don't know. On what planet is that a good idea? It is a good
idea only in the Republican-controlled Congress here.
We will see during the rest of this week Republicans' priorities all
twisted as my Republican colleagues jam through Trump's one big, awful
tax scam.
The Speaker has ordered Republicans on the Committee on Rules to meet
at 1 o'clock in the morning. That is the middle of the night. Again,
here is what puzzles me: We were supposed to meet at noon yesterday,
and we are instead meeting at 1 o'clock in the morning.
Mr. Speaker, we know there are going to be changes. Republicans could
have taken testimony and hearings from all the committees and waited to
report out the rule until whenever final deals were made with their
Members. Yet, Republicans are deliberately choosing to meet at 1
o'clock in the morning on something this consequential.
Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman thinks it is a good idea. The
gentleman says that I will use my time and try to take every moment I
can to make my points. I can say to the gentleman: You bet your life I
will be. I am going to be fighting like hell for the people of this
country. I am not going to sit back, and I can say this for the other
Democratic Members and others who will come to this mike: We are not
going to sit back and watch our constituents get screwed over. We are
just not going to do that.
Republicans can do it at 1 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock in the
morning. We are going to be there, and we are going to stay there. We
are going to offer our amendments, and we are going to make our points.
I would urge my colleagues to be prepared to be there for a very, very
long time.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the gentleman can give us some assurance
that, unlike in the Agriculture Committee where the chairman cut off
debate and cut off amendments even though there were many amendments
that were pending, we won't see the same thing happen in the Committee
on Rules.
Clearly, our debate on this bill is something Republicans don't want
the American people to see. I invite every single American--it doesn't
matter if they are Republican, Democrat, Independent, or someone who
doesn't follow politics--to tune in to the Committee on Rules. It will
be up on our website. I will be live-streaming on YouTube. It will be
on C-SPAN. Hell, maybe even cable will carry us live.
I urge Americans to watch it and judge for themselves what this bill
means for them and their families and their communities. They will see
how Republicans are gutting regular order to jam this thing through.
They will probably see them walk in with a huge amendment at the last
minute. It will be one that could dramatically change the bill,
including accelerating the timeline for kicking millions of people off
of their health insurance. As soon as next year, people could start
losing coverage. That is what we are being told might be coming down
the way.
If the rule that we are talking about right now passes, my Republican
colleagues will be able to rush that newly changed bill to the floor
just hours later, giving Members and the American public zero time to
read it or to review it.
Make no mistake: A vote for today's rule is a vote to give the
Republican leadership a blank check to fast-track Trump's one big, ugly
bill through this House.
Mr. Speaker, here is what really gets me: Members of the House
Freedom

[[Page H2166]]

Caucus have said over and over again that bringing a 1,000-page bill to
the floor without time to read it is corrupt and immoral. They were the
loudest voices demanding the 72-hour rule, so let's see if they mean
it. Let's see if they actually mean what they say or if they fold under
pressure.
Mr. Speaker, I urge every Member of this House to vote ``no'' on the
PQ, ``hell no'' on this rule, ``no'' on the underlying legislation, and
to send a strong message that we reject this Republican obsession with
screwing over the middle class to give tax breaks to billionaires.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we are here once again to protect Americans from the
heavy hand of Biden-era regulations. The slew of midnight rules forced
on the American people by the last administration pose a direct harm to
our Nation's economy, and it has threatened jobs.
The pieces of legislation before us today under this rule are not
filler. They are quite the opposite. The resolutions passed by the
Senate and here before the House are lawmaking exercises. Democrats'
dismissal of these CRAs speak volumes as to their lack of care and
compassion for the serious ramifications that the regulatory agenda has
had on the economy, on consumer choice, and on the environment.
My Democratic colleagues certainly wouldn't want to focus our time
today on these CRAs because they are part and parcel to dismantling the
regulatory agenda that they wed themselves to for 4 long years under
President Biden.
What was the result of their commitment in the Biden-era regulatory
agenda: $450 billion in new regulatory costs on the economy. That may
just be numbers on paper for a D.C. bureaucrat, but the amounts of jobs
lost, manufacturing shuttered, and communities decimated for folks
outside the beltway is what it is really all about.
The CRAs before us will allow Congress and the Trump administration
to continue its important work of reversing harmful regulations and
unleashing the promise of the American economy. I strongly support the
rule before us today.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 426 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 2753) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 to provide for a point of order against reconciliation
measures that cut benefits for Medicaid or the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on
any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening
motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Rules or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 5. Clause 1 (c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 2753.

Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question are postponed.

____________________