Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the exceptional dedication and service of Sheriff Charles Foster of Wythe County, Virginia, who retired on August 1 after a 38-year career in law enforcement.

Through nearly four decades, Sheriff Foster has served Wythe County Sheriff's Office with the integrity and devotion of a true public servant.

Hired at the age of 18 as a dispatcher, Sheriff Foster developed strong ties to those he worked with early in his career and earned high marks from his community.

After more than 30 years serving the Sheriff's Office, Mr. Foster ran for Wythe County Sheriff in 2021. Given community support of his law enforcement experience and credentials, it was no surprise that he won the election, unopposed.

In 2023, Wythe County reaffirmed their trust in Sheriff Foster by re- electing him Sheriff. For the past four years in the role, Sheriff Foster led his department with humility, professionalism, and a profound sense of duty to his community.

My office appreciated working with Sheriff Foster during his tenure. Thanks to his help and the Wythe County Sheriff's Office, they provide a room for my staff to hold traveling staff office hours and provide services to constituents.

Southwest Virginia communities are served and represented by dedicated law enforcement professionals like Sheriff Foster. Aspiring officers and fellow law enforcement groups should be inspired by his legacy, defined by a deep personal calling to protect and serve. As Sheriff Foster begins this next chapter, we offer him our heartfelt thanks for his decades of service and his unwavering protection of his fellow Southwest Virginians.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and work of Southwest Virginia racing icon Larry McClure, who passed away on June 25 at the age of 81.

On March 21, 1944, Mr. McClure was born in the Harmon, Virginia, community, located in Buchanan County. After moving to Chilhowie in Smyth County during his childhood, Mr. McClure began to develop a passion for automobiles and racing.

His years-long interest in cars eventually culminated in the co- founding of McClure Motor Sales. Along with his brother Ed, the McClures started the automobile business with great spirits and motivation.

In 1980, Mr. McClure helped lead an effort with Tim Morgan to open Morgan McClure Chevrolet in Coeburn, Virginia. Later in 1983, Mr. McClure joined forces with his brothers and Mr. Morgan in the founding of legendary auto racing team Morgan-McClure Motorsports.

Many long-time residents of Southwest Virginia remember the era of dominance under Mr. McClure's leadership in the 1990s.

Morgan-McClure Motorsports secured its very first win close to home, at none other than the Bristol Motor Speedway. Despite legendary driver Dale Earnhardt leading the pack for a majority of the Busch 500, Morgan-McClure racer Ernie Irvan pulled ahead for the win.

Following this 1990 victory, Morgan-McClure Motorsports continued to win.

The next year, Morgan-McClure Motorsports won NASCAR's ``Crown Jewel'' by finishing in first place at the Daytona 500 and beating some of NASCAR's finest.

Most notably, Morgan-McClure Motorsports took home back-to-back Daytona 500 titles in 1994 and 1995, cementing the team as a powerhouse in the sport.

Between 1990 and 1998, Morgan-McClure Motorsports won 14 races at the NASCAR cup level. Mr. McClure favored drivers that were not afraid to take risks and captivated audiences with the famous No. 4 Kodak Chevrolet. Despite most teams being based around Charlotte, Mr. McClure was proud of his roots in Virginia and found great joy in running his team out of Washington County.

While many associate Mr. McClure with racing excellence, others remember Mr. McClure for his compassion and humility. In 2004, fellow Virginian and opposing driver Hermie Sadler's only engine gave out at Chicagoland. Without hesitation, Mr. McClure gave Sadler a spare engine.

Sterling Martin, who spent multiple years driving for Morgan-McClure Motorsports and won the 1994 and 1995 Daytona 500 events, attributed his racing success to Mr. McClure. After McClure's passing, Martin shared how much Mr. McClure meant to him. He described McClure as ``innovative, smart and a hell of a guy.''

Mr. McClure is survived by his loving wife of 58 years, Ginny; brothers Ed (Lee), Teddy (Sarah), Jerry (Sue), and Gerald (Ruth), all of Abingdon; Jim of Chevy Chase, Maryland; and Michael of Florida; sister Betsy (Roy) of Las Vegas; sister-in-law Wilma; along with many aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, and special friends. He also leaves behind his cherished fur baby, Prissy.

Today, we recognize Mr. McClure's impact on NASCAR and his influence in Southwest Virginia. As a lifelong native of the region, we will forever celebrate the accolades and feats of a NASCAR legend from Southwest Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I offer these remarks in honor of Mr. Durward W. Owen, a beloved member of Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity and a giant in the interfraternal world, who passed away on Easter Sunday April 20th at the age of 94.

A native of Roanoke, Virginia, Mr. Owen was born on August 30, 1930. His roots in the Roanoke Valley and love for that part of Virginia remained for years, no matter where he and his family lived. As a young, promising talent in baseball, Mr. Owen received a scholarship to play catcher at Roanoke College in Salem, Virginia where he was initiated into the Xi Chapter of Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity.

Through Mr. Owen's time at Roanoke College, he grew as a young adult and matured. Around this time in 1952, he married the love of his life, Hazel Claudine ``Connie'' Manning. He also served his country in the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force. Following his military service, Mr. Owen returned to Roanoke College to finish his studies before graduating in 1955.

An integral part of Mr. Owen's college life and later his adult life was the Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity. The organization helped shape Mr. Owen and provided him and opportunity to foster lifelong friendship and a commitment consistent with the mission, vision and values of the Fraternity. Shortly after his graduation from Roanoke College, Mr. Owen was recruited to begin his career with the organization, working first in South Carolina before relocating to North Carolina.

His service to Pi Kappa Phi included his role as National Executive Secretary, later renamed Executive Director. In a span of 35 years, Mr. Owen's disciplined leadership and unique vision resulted in the Fraternity's growth from 46 chapters to 136 chapters nationally and led to Pi Kappa Phi being recognized among the country's most important Greek organizations.

Other significant accomplishments and pursuits of Mr. Owen included the creation of a national philanthropic organization, PUSH, Inc., for Pi Kappa Phi. PUSH, now known as the Ability Experience, which strives to instill a passion for lifelong service in fraternity members while helping to empower people living with disabilities. Mr. Owen also developed the Pi Kappa Phi Foundation, an educational foundation of the fraternity and provides funding for the educational and leadership programs of the Greater Fraternity.

Thanks to Mr. Owen's exceptional work, Pi Kappa Phi's direction has positively impacted the lives of more than 160,000 young men. I know this, because I myself am a member of Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity. I was invited to membership in 2013, well after my undergraduate experience at Emory & Henry College. The invitation to membership came from Roanoke-area friends who were active alumni in the Fraternity's chapter at Roanoke College.

I am thankful for the opportunity to become a member of Pi Kappa Phi and to witness the important role the organization has in creating an uncommon and lifelong brotherhood that develops leaders and encourages service to others for the betterment of our communities. I, along with all members of Pi Kappa Phi, owe Mr. Owen a debt of gratitude for his help in making shaping this organization that has impacted me and thousands of other men.

Roanoke College later recognized Mr. Owen for his outstanding qualities of integrity, leadership and citizenship that Maroons hold dear. In 2020, Roanoke awarded Mr. Owen its highest honor for alumni, the Roanoke College Medal. A scholarship was also created in Mr. Owen's honor to recognize an exemplary Roanoke College student and Fraternity member who has exhibited superior leadership skills.

Durward is survived by three children--Melissa Luer (Bill) of New Orleans, Louisiana, David Owen (Leigh Ann) of Greenville, South Carolina and Sally Jackson (Bill) of Huntersville, North Carolina. He is also survived by eight grandchildren, 10 great grandchildren and numerous nieces and nephews.

Mr. Owen's ceaseless dedication and service to Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity and to his community will be missed by many. He will be remembered by the brotherhood as a visionary, a leader and a dear friend.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the exceptional courage and service of Lieutenant Brandon Hall of Buchanan County, Virginia.

On May 1st, Lieutenant Hall responded to an emergency in which a camper had filled with dangerous levels of carbon monoxide. Inside the camper were two adults and a child, all unconscious. When faced with an invisible but deadly threat, Lieutenant Hall entered the camper, removed the victims, and quickly administered critical first aid.

In a moment of crisis, Lieutenant Hall was among the first to arrive, and when faced with danger, he did not pause. Lieutenant Hall's bravery and quick thinking saved these lives and stand as a testament to the selfless courage of the public servants in Virginia's Ninth Congressional District.

Today, we recognize Lieutenant Hall for his swift and courageous response. The strength and skill he demonstrated in a time of emergency, reflect the very best of Southwest Virginia. We thank him for his service and are deeply grateful for his dedication.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 489, I call up the bill (S. 331) to amend the Controlled Substances Act with respect to the scheduling of fentanyl-related substances, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to insert extraneous materials on S. 331.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, most Members in this Chamber know someone who has been affected by the drug overdose epidemic plaguing our country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2023, there were more than 107,000 overdose deaths that occurred in the United States. These staggering numbers are due in large part to the increasing presence of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues which are approximately 100 times more potent than morphine and 50 times more potent than heroin. The lethal dose of fentanyl is just 2 milligrams or about four grains of sand.

A loophole that the cartels have tried to use to traffic their illicit fentanyl into our country is by changing one part of fentanyl's chemical structure to create fentanyl analogues. The cartels did this in an attempt to evade our criminal laws.

Right now, fentanyl analogues are considered schedule I substances, but only because of a series of temporary scheduling orders, and that order is now set to expire on September 30 of this year.

That is why the HALT Fentanyl Act, led by myself and my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) in this House and then Senators Cassidy and Heinrich in the Senate, is critically needed.

This bill aims to curb overdose deaths by permanently scheduling fentanyl analogues as schedule I substances, Mr. Speaker. This will strengthen law enforcement's ability to prosecute fentanyl traffickers and act as a deterrent.

The HALT Fentanyl Act promotes research by improving the registration process so eligible individuals can conduct studies on schedule I substances

with the appropriate safeguards. In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we have heard there may be as many as 4,800 analogues. My understanding is that experts at NIH and FDA and other agencies have studied roughly 30 of those 4,800 analogues.

By encouraging research of schedule I substances like fentanyl analogues, we can better understand how these substances work and how we can prevent potentially harmful impacts in the future. The temporary bans, Mr. Speaker, did not deal with the research component. So without this bill, we cannot legally do the research on the analogues that may, someday, be found to have medical benefits.

Because fentanyl itself has a proven medical use, it is considered a schedule II drug, but illicit derivatives of fentanyl, also called fentanyl analogues, currently have no demonstrated medical value.

Let me be clear. This bill will have no impact whatsoever on a physician's ability to administer fentanyl in medical settings. The HALT Fentanyl Act deals specifically with analogues, not medicinal fentanyl.

We must address this bipartisan issue immediately and not allow this temporary extension to expire in September.

Once fentanyl analogues are permanently placed into schedule I, Congress will continue to build off this work to continue to address the illicit fentanyl crisis in our country.

According to a 2021 GAO report, there was a 90 percent decrease in these analogues coming into our country the year they were placed temporarily into schedule I.

This bill is a critical step in combating the opioid crisis in our country because China and Mexico are heavily involved in this business. China sends the precursors of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues, the API, or active pharmaceutical ingredients, to the cartels in Mexico who are then making the drugs and bringing them across our borders.

By making these analogues permanently schedule I, it removes the incentive to traffic these drugs into our country due to the penalties if they are caught.

China has even realized the risk of analogues themselves and has permanently scheduled these analogues on their strictest schedule. Other countries have followed suit and done the same.

This bill received bipartisan support on the House floor with a vote of 312-108 in February. The bill has the support of many law enforcement agencies and other entities calling for the need to pass the bill.

With passage of this version of the bill, it will be sent to the President's desk. I am hopeful the President will sign this bill into law quickly so that we can continue to combat this crisis and begin research in earnest to see if there is any benefit from any of the analogues that may help people who are afflicted having been addicted by accident or on purpose to fentanyl.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support S. 331, the HALT Fentanyl Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Latta) who has helped lead the charge on this legislation for many years now.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), the chairman of the Health Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), the vice chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Joyce), who I understand is the youngest Mr. Joyce in the House.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman said, this is an identical bill to the one that passed out of the House with the exception of a few technical changes the Senate made, including sticking their number on it instead of the House number. Other than that, it is essentially the same bill this House passed and, frankly, with bipartisan support.

I understand the gentleman's objections related to mandatory minimum sentences, but that is a different bill and a different day. That is not what this bill is about. This bill is about making fentanyl analogues a schedule I or making all of them schedule I substances.

The gentleman referenced that there is no off-ramp. I would suggest to him that the off-ramp is in the eye of the beholder.

What we did in this bill, and I think it is something that everybody on the floor can be proud of, we put into this bill the capability to do extensive research by universities, the NIH, and the FDA. We created a framework to do research on the 4,800 believed analogues of fentanyl.

I believe it has two advantages. One, if we find one of these analogues that has no harm and even has a positive effect for some issue, that creates your off-ramp. There is already an off-ramp in the law for drugs that show promise and have a medicinal benefit. That opens up other statutes. This one doesn't have that off-ramp, but other statutes do that would allow if somebody comes in and says, wow, look at what this does. It does good things in the X area or the Y area or whatever. This bill has the component parts to make that possible. Unlike our schedule I on marijuana, which never allowed research or realistic research and created some of the dilemmas that we have today with that substance. We fixed that with this bill.

Secondly, that research component, I believe if there is any benefit in the analogues at all, it may be that one of the analogues--I am not saying it will and I think the odds are slim, but it is possible that one of the analogues will have a blocking effect on the deadly aspects of fentanyl itself, and that would be a huge positive.

When my colleague says that it has nothing on dealing with the problem as far as people who have an addiction, he is right. It does not today, but that research component has great potential for the future.

In the short run, we stop the Chinese from bringing the precursors to Mexico and the Mexican cartels creating new analogues and trying to get around our laws by claiming it is not really fentanyl, it is an analog. We stop those attempts by the bad guys, the illegal people trying to bring this into our country and bringing it in, unfortunately, successfully. We stop it. We stop them using that technique to get around the law. Then we leave the door open for positive future benefits, if any, in the analogues.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have helped draft this legislation. I am proud to have drafted the part on the research component. I am proud that, notwithstanding the fact that they made a few tweaks and sent back a Senate bill rather than sending back mine and Mr. Latta's original House bill, I am proud to stand here today in support of the HALT Fentanyl Act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues in this House to vote ``yes'' and let's send it to the President's desk. Let's make this a permanent law in the United States.

As Chairman Guthrie said: It is not going to solve every problem, but it makes our kids just a little bit safer.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, June 6, marks the 81st anniversary of D-day, June 6, 1944.

In my district, Bedford County, Virginia, is designated as a World War II Heritage City by the National Park Service, the only such World War II Heritage City in Virginia.

Bedford County is home to the National D-day Memorial. This memorial commemorates the soldiers who courageously stormed Omaha Beach on June 6, 1944.

Bedford had the largest D-day loss per capita of any town in the United States, losing 20 men on Omaha Beach. Known to many as the Bedford Boys, they were amongst the first soldiers to land at Normandy as part of Operation Overlord. Their stories of heroism and sacrifice will be passed along from generation to generation.

One of the men who sought to memorialize their heroic actions was Staff Sergeant Bob Slaughter. A native of Roanoke, Virginia, Mr. Slaughter served in Company D, 116th Infantry Regiment. Soldiers from central, southside, and southwest Virginia served in the 116th.

Mr. Slaughter and the 116th were part of the first wave on the beaches. Mr. Speaker, when you watch the opening scenes of the film ``Saving Private Ryan,'' you will see the terror and chaos the men of the 116th saw.

Mr. Slaughter was one of more than 34,000 Americans who stormed the beach over the several days of the operation and faced heavy artillery from the Atlantic Wall and the Nazi war machine.

Mr. Slaughter, 19 years old at the time, lived through the horrors and mass casualties of D-day. His company faced heavy shelling as his landing craft reached the beach. The incoming fire from enemy weapons persisted as he stormed the beach and bravely trekked up the dangerous terrain.

Even though many from his unit were killed before leaving the beach, he was part of a small group who found a goat trail that was protected from Nazi fire. That group circled behind the enemy and took out enemy positions firing on the American soldiers below.

More than 10,000 Americans lost their lives on D-day, including many of the Bedford-based soldiers of Company A.

Mr. Slaughter received two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts for his service. Later in his life, however, he wanted to award and honor the countless lives who heroically fought on June 6, 1944. The memories of these soldiers had to be preserved, and that was his task.

Those memories drove Mr. Slaughter to undergo a journey to honor the lives of those young men who served our country on one of the most daunting days in American history.

Mr. Slaughter, along with others, including Lucille Hoback Boggess, who lost two brothers on D-day, pushed for Bedford to be the home of the National D-day Memorial. He founded the National D-day Memorial, served as its chairman for 7 years, and later wrote a memoir, ``Omaha Beach and Beyond,'' to commemorate the sacrifices of our D-day soldiers.

U.S. President Bill Clinton signed legislation designating the National D-day Memorial in Bedford as the Nation's monument to D-day, and President George W. Bush dedicated the memorial in 2001.

Every year, the National D-day Memorial hosts an anniversary event to pay tribute to and recognize the sacrifices of America's valiant soldiers. That would be tomorrow, and Bedford is not that far away.

As a former member of the Virginia House of Delegates and the Congressman from Virginia's Ninth District, I continue to visit the memorial and pay tribute to America's Greatest Generation.

For last year's 80th anniversary event, nearly two dozen World War II veterans were present. Tomorrow's event is slated to welcome several.

Tomorrow's event will also feature a special panel that discusses the legacy of Mr. Slaughter, who, unfortunately, is no longer with us. He died in 2012, and he would have turned 100 this year. Mr. Slaughter's son will participate on the panel.

The tremendous success of the memorial, the patriotism that it inspires, and the stories that continue to be shared can be attributed to Staff Sergeant Bob Slaughter, Company D, 116th Infantry Regiment, 29th Infantry Division.

As a resident of the Roanoke Valley, I had the honor of getting to know Mr. Slaughter. Tomorrow is about honoring 19-year-old Bob Slaughter and all the men who went to fight for freedom. What mattered was their sacrifice, strength to fight, and willingness to put their lives on the line so others could be free. What mattered was Bob Slaughter's drive to memorialize the countless sacrifices of his brothers-in-arms.

To all our world war veterans, to all of the families of those who served on D-day and to Mr. Slaughter, our Nation owes them a thank you. I thank all of them for their extraordinary sacrifices on behalf of American liberty.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of a colleague and member of the Virginia House of Delegates, Delegate Barnie Day, who passed away on May 12th at the age of 72.

Born in 1952, Delegate Day grew up in North Carolina. An early part of his character development came in high school when Delegate Day started a job working in an aluminum factory for $1.85 per hour.

After finishing school at the University of North Carolina in 1975, Delegate Day looked for opportunities in journalism. He worked for small newspaper organizations in North Carolina and Kansas City. During this time, he developed a great journalistic acumen.

Southwest Virginia soon became home to Delegate Day and his wife, Debbie. They first moved to Floyd County before settling in Patrick County.

It was in Patrick County where Mr. Day blossomed as a local official and community leader. As county administrator, he strived for the best interests of Patrick County and worked to improve his community.

His service to Patrick County included stints with critical institutions like the First Bank of Stuart Board of Directors, Tri-Area Health Clinic and the Patrick County Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors.

The people of Patrick County appreciated and praised Mr. Day for his work on their behalf. He earned such high marks that they elected him to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1997.

I served in the state legislature alongside Delegate Day during his two terms in office. He showcased incredible oratory skills and passionate advocacy for rural Virginia. Members of both parties appreciated his storytelling.

Delegate Day's stories often featured ``Cornbread'', a fictional character whose endeavors served as the building blocks of Day's arguments on legislation.

Given his exceptional verbal skills and mastery of the English language, one Virginia political commentator called him ``Virginia's Mark Twain.''

The legacy of Delegate Day is to be commended and celebrated by rural Virginians. His life of honorable service and love for helping others made Delegate Day an outstanding figure that future community leaders can look to as inspiration.

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Mr. Speaker, this is supposed to be a challenge because the rule says that we waived earmarks, but the gentleman is not talking about earmarks. He is talking about process that he doesn't like. He is talking about parts of the bill that he doesn't like, but he has not mentioned any specific earmark.

Even the gentleman who spoke before him, the gentleman from Massachusetts, only talked in general terms about things that were general policy, not earmarks.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman is not in order, giving remarks that are not pertinent.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in the point of order--which I didn't have the rule in hand, but it is 17(1)(b). As I said then, if they want to complain that they didn't like the process, if they don't like the bill, if there is a piece of the bill they don't like, save that for the debate on the bill itself. Instead, they have raised a parliamentary procedure to claim that the rule is not proper, assuming or claiming that there are earmarks. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that they have not mentioned an earmark yet.

I have been listening. I have been wondering where it was because I have read the bill and the manager's amendment. With the manager's amendment, I see no earmarks in the bill. They haven't brought it up, and I submit it is because they can't. The proper ruling would be to rule that there aren't any earmarks.

I understand we might have to take a vote, but let's try to get our processes right, Mr. Speaker. I would submit to everybody that we ought to get the process right.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 87) providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Emission Warranty and Maintenance Provisions; Advanced Clean Trucks; Zero Emission Airport Shuttle; Zero-Emission Power Train Certification; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 87.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 87, a resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Heavy-Duty Vehicle and Engine Emission Warranty and Maintenance Provisions; Advanced Clean Trucks; Zero Emission Airport Shuttle; Zero-Emission Power Train Certification; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision,'' sponsored by my friend from the great manufacturing State of Michigan.

In general, what makes these California rules have such an outsized impact on the rest of the country is that, under section 177 of the Clean Air Act, other States can opt in to the California standard.

Not only does California dominate because of its sheer size, but when a

handful of other States opt in, the California standard becomes the de facto national standard for the United States.

It is my understanding that on just this California EPA waiver for trucks, 10 States--Colorado, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington--have opted in to this regulation. This is concerning to me because it seems that California is being given super-State status vis-a-vis the other States of the Union.

States can opt in to a proposal of the privileged State or the super- State but are not able to request a preemption or a waiver from the Federal Government on their own.

This is either the national standard or the California standard. Those are the only two you can have.

It does not allow for individual States to become the laboratories of innovation and democracy as was seen fit and as it was believed to be the case for our Federal system.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that the States should be equal. I am not so sure that we need a super-State imposing its preference on the rest of the country. If that is what we want, why not cede all authority to California and disband the United States Congress?

Either way, having parallel State vehicle regulatory systems is what really causes manufacturers and big fleet operators to be concerned.

Specifically, on this California advanced clean truck rule, this rule creates a complex credit trading system where truck manufacturers must buy or generate zero-emission truck credits just to have the privilege of doing business in the State.

At the end of the day, this rule is very restrictive on traditional diesel-powered trucks. By 2035, this rule ends up requiring electric big rigs to make up 40 percent of the class sales.

I am not here to tell you that electric trucks don't have their place. We all know that they do. Yard trucks, in particular, might be an application where electric trucks have an advantage. Perhaps in certain city delivery situations, those delivery routes could be done with electric vehicles.

That should be a business decision, not the decision of a waiver granted by bureaucrats from Washington to a super-State to dictate to the rest of the country what our policies should be.

Unfortunately for independent owner-operators and small trucking companies, this mandate for electric trucks comes with a very expensive price tag. A new diesel rig costs about $180,000. Electric big rigs can go anywhere from $200,000 to $400,000. That price tag is going to hit the independent driver, the small owner-operators, and the small fleets hard.

Trucking is a relatively small-margin business where time on the road equals money. I am afraid that all of these increased costs could lead to more consolidation in the industry and less competition.

Further, these higher rig costs will present a bigger barrier to entry for the owner-operators and small trucking companies that, with the current technology, would have more charging downtime. Accordingly, not only are they not able to be on the road, but when they are off the road, they are off for a longer period of time.

Time on the road, as I said earlier, equals money. Therefore, it is going to cost more to operate. The big companies might be fine with that, but your smaller companies are going to find it very difficult.

This regulation throws a wet blanket on truckers' opportunities to share in the American Dream of starting their own business, starting out with one truck and building it to five and then maybe getting it to 10. It gives all the power to the big companies.

I believe that this electric truck mandate is going to lead to inefficiency and increased costs on all products that have to be transported over road.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to join me in voting in favor of H.J. Res. 87 and ending this regulatory nightmare.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I remind my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey, that we are not here today talking about Medicaid cuts. We are talking about EPA rules that need to be set aside in a Congressional Review Act.

You heard him say that this is all illegal. I find this kind of interesting because we have heard them railing for weeks on executive action and why haven't the Republicans pushed back against executive action. That is what we are doing today. We are railing about executive actions. Now, it is the prior administration, mind you, but they are executive actions.

Madam Speaker, I ask you just to use your logic on this, to stop and think about this. The EPA passes what they call a decision in a legalistic attempt to get around the law. That decision that they claim does not fall under the CRA process gives a waiver on Federal regulations to a State, California, that then if you opt in 100 percent, you can't modify it. If you opt in 100 percent into the California rule, other States, currently a minority of the States opt in to, but because you didn't create this patchwork what happens in the industry is, everybody starts to move in that direction. Because if we have to do it in California and 9 other States or 10 other States, then we might as well do it nationally.

What happens is, this is a de facto national regulation. My colleagues on the other side are saying that because they have called it a decision instead of calling it a regulation because they are using a waiver of a regulation that somehow Congress doesn't have any authority.

Madam Speaker, they would have you believe that this Congress can't make decisions on its own. We have to rely on independent bureaucrats to tell us how to do our jobs. I say to you, Madam Speaker, if the Senate wishes to take a back seat to the unelected bureaucrats, so be it. As long as I am in the United States Congress, I will fight to make sure that we are, at least, grabbing what power we can. They heard me say yesterday in committee that I think we give too much to the various Secretaries. I think we give too much to the executive branch. Here is a case where we have an opportunity, Madam Speaker, to grab power back from the bureaucrats and to say: No, you can't do this. My colleagues want to rely on legalistic principles from the unelected bureaucratic class in Washington, D.C. I cannot agree to that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber), my good friend and colleague.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am not against States' rights. I am against creating a super State in California because they are the only ones that are entitled to get a waiver and then claiming, as the Government Accountability Office, that they have some kind of extrajudicial authority to tell Congress how to do its business. I don't agree with that. I believe we make those decisions, not the GAO.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my good friend, on this resolution.

Madam Speaker, point of parliamentary inquiry.

Did the gentleman from New Jersey reserve?

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James), home to a large part of our manufacturing base for automobiles.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 88) providing congressional disapproval under

chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Cars II; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 88.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 88, a resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine Pollution Control Standards; Advanced Clean Cars II; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision,'' sponsored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania's resolution would repeal the EPA's decision to grant a Federal preemption waiver for this California Air Resources Board rule, the so-called Advanced Clean Cars II rule.

California had a strict vehicle emission standard before, but this rule right here is a mandate. It is a mandate, Mr. Speaker, for electric cars.

The requirement begins with 35 percent of the vehicles sold in 2026 being zero emissions and then scales up to 100 percent of vehicles sold by 2035.

This is an EV mandate, Mr. Speaker. Make no mistake about it.

Mr. Speaker, if you are shopping for a new car in 2035, then you are going to be forced to buy a zero-emission car. At present time, you will be paying more for that EV, about $14,000 more.

These are supposed to be tailpipe emissions standards, not emission standards that are so low or difficult to meet that electric cars are the only path to compliance.

I am not an anti-electric car person. I don't hate electric cars. If an electric car works for you and your family, Mr. Speaker, then so be it. That is fine, but what really gets me and a lot of my constituents stirred up about this is that we are mandating that these cars be the only ones sold.

Mr. Speaker, I represent a mountainous district where electric car batteries are not up to the challenge. When you factor in range problems and charging waiting times, it is not something that many in rural America can use.

I fear that we might find ourselves in situations like Cuba did after Fidel Castro took over. Because of the shortage of new cars in Cuba, people were doing everything they could to keep the pre-Castro cars on the road for decades and decades. In many districts like mine, we might have something similar with gas-burning cars if EVs are mandated.

Let me explain. My folks cannot afford to buy a new EV car. They can't really afford to buy a used car. Normally, what they do in a district like mine, which is economically stressed, is they will buy a used car. The problem is that with the batteries in the EV cars, if you buy a used car, Mr. Speaker, then you really don't have any idea how long it is going to be before that battery wears out.

As a result, Mr. Speaker, you buy the chassis and a battery hoping it works for you if you don't have any other choice. If the battery goes bad, then you are looking at $4,000, $5,000, maybe more, to replace the battery.

It is kind of like going to the roulette table and just throwing your money on the table and spinning the wheel, hoping that if you buy a used car, you might be able to make it work because the battery is so integral.

With gas-burning cars, a lot of them know how to fix the cars themselves, and they will make it work. They will continue using those gas cars as long as they can get any usage out of it whatsoever, no matter how bad of a shape it is in, because they can't afford to buy one of the leftwing's EV cars.

That is just not going to happen in my district by the timelines that they set up.

The technology is not available today, and when we are talking about 2035, the technology we are selling today is what my constituents are looking to buy used in the future. Many people drive cars more than 10 years old, and they are going to put our folks either without cars or still burning gas cars for many years, many decades, in the future.

There are some communities in my district that are more suburban and urban, and there an electric car may make sense for those folks. But some of my folks drive an hour or more to go to work or even go to school because it is cheaper for them to live at home and drive to the school. I am talking about the colleges and the law schools and the vet school and the pharmacy school in my district. Every day they drive back and forth to save money and they don't want to have to rely on an EV car that might not get them there and back.

When it is cold and you are going up a mountain, the EV doesn't get the mileage that is stated. It is kind of like your gas mileage. When you buy a car, it says a standard driver will get this much, but that doesn't work for everybody, particularly if you are climbing mountains. If you need to run errands before or after work, that adds to the time. It makes it so they have anxiety about recharging. That is a real issue for people being forced to drive EV cars.

I can't even get around my district in an EV car. I looked at it because I like the idea, but I sometimes drive 400 miles a day around my district. Oftentimes, there is no place to charge, or if there is, I am not stopping at any one place long enough to get a full charge on an EV battery.

Some might say this is just a California regulation. That is just not so. As we heard in the previous debate, and we will hear again in this debate, California is a dominant force in the economy. They will tell you that every day of the week.

Further, while California has a waiver, other States can opt into it. They can't modify it, but they can opt into the California standard. When they do, that pushes the manufacturers further and further in the direction of the California standard.

The States should either be equal or we should have a national policy. I am not so sure that we should give California a super-State status, imposing its preferences on the rest of the country.

It gets even worse. This started in 1966, and then it made some sense. Today, it doesn't make sense. Right now, we have 11 States opting in to this California standard: Oregon, Washington, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Colorado, New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Mexico, and Maryland. With those States, even though they represent a minority of the population and a minority of the market and a minority of the States, they are dictating much of what is going to happen in the rest of the market.

Now, those markets add up to about 35 percent of the total new car market,

and this has a cascading effect on manufacturers who are forced by the policy of a minority of States not to do what the market dictates but to do what the States have dictated and to make unprofitable investments that won't work for the poor, rural areas, particularly mountainous ones, in the United States.

The situation we now find ourselves in is different than the one that was contemplated by the 90th Congress. In 1967, when the body passed the Air Quality Act, which later became the Clean Air Act after extensive amendments in later years, in that act California was allowed to have a waiver for stricter tailpipe pollution regulations. One of the big reasons this carve-out was made was because of the terrible smog that enveloped Los Angeles at the time.

I remember that. I can remember that being talked about in the news. We have all seen the old pictures. You have got the ocean on one side and the mountains inland. It causes an inversion where pollution just sits over the cities there. California was granted this exemption because it already had the capabilities to formulate and enforce stricter standards. That is not true for everywhere else, nor was it anticipated that they would continue to ratchet up to the point where they made many cars in the United States illegal.

The intent of the waiver was to allow California to have more stringent vehicle standards, not a way to have a backdoor ban on gasoline- and diesel-powered cars for the rest of the country.

I urge all Members to join me in voting in favor of H.J. Res. 88, to roll back the State of California's EV-only agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. McClain) to address the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), who is the chief sponsor of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, referencing my previous comments related to the GAO, et cetera, I will not yield to the GAO on what the responsibilities of the United States Congress are.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Balderson), my swimming partner.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I was saying to the team over here that I was getting a little tired of hearing myself speak, and I suspect that my colleague and good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey, is probably getting to that same point, too, because our job is to reiterate the same points over and over because we have three bills of a similar nature.

Notwithstanding the fact that I am tired of hearing myself speak, I will proceed nonetheless.

I will say that States can opt in and out, but they only have the choice of the national standard or the California standard. Why is that?

Madam Speaker, that is because back in 1966, California started moving in this direction. In 1967, Congress passed its first national rules. It recognized that California was already moving in a slightly different direction, and it gave them the ability to have a waiver. Other States could opt in to that, but in 1966, the world was greatly different than it is today.

In fairness, a big part of the air pollution in the Western part of the United States comes because of previous bad rules by the EPA that force so much of American manufacturing to Asia, particularly to China.

China was not a major economic power in 1966. They were going through all kinds of problems, and I don't remember now if they were in the Cultural Revolution or about to start it, but it was about that time.

Today, they are a major manufacturer but they don't have the regulations that we have and they produce a lot of air pollution. According to a NASA study, it takes 10 days for the air to get from the middle of the Gobi Desert to the eastern shore of Virginia, and a lot of that pollution is falling on California.

If we really want to solve California's air pollution problems, we need to bring manufacturing back to the United States where we can do it more efficiently and cleaner than what they are doing currently in China. Further, regulations like this only play into the hands of manufacturing being done in China instead of being done in California or in Michigan or in Virginia or in Kentucky.

Now, the gentleman raised the issue about nobody is talking about clean air. There is your clean air talk, Mr. Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my good friend from New Jersey, because if we really want to clean things up, we will stop regulations like this that make it harder on American businesses.

The gentleman correctly points out that this is only for California and other States can opt in. What happens is, manufacturers respond to California and they respond to a few other States, even though it is not a majority, Madam Speaker; even though it is not a majority of the States or a majority of the population that has opted in to any of these three regulations that we are doing today or intends to. Some States have opted in to the California rule on this one and then opted out, including my State of Virginia.

It becomes a mishmash and very difficult for manufacturers to know what they are supposed to be doing. The regulations that were anticipated--was it a tailpipe emission regulation--were never intended that the regulation by California and other States, perhaps, would be so low as to outlaw gas and diesel vehicles. That is why we need to pass this CRA.

We have the authority in Congress to do so notwithstanding bureaucrats that work for us, not the other way around, and notwithstanding whatever the Senate might say.

If I have additional time, Madam Speaker, you know how I feel about this. We were directed in Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentary Practice and Procedure not to discuss and debate what the Senate was going to do or not going do. If we wanted a unicameral body, we should have had a unicameral body. We have a bicameral body, and this House must make its own decisions and not worry about what the Senate does or whatever the heck the Senate Parliamentarian may think.

It is the United States House of Representatives, and we should not take a back seat to any institution, particularly the unelected ones here in Washington, D.C.

Madam Speaker, I ask everyone to vote for this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 89) providing congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine and Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; The `Omnibus' Low NOX Regulation; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 89.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 89, a resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``California State Motor Vehicle and Engine and Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards; The `Omnibus' Low NOX Regulation; Waiver of Preemption; Notice of Decision,'' sponsored by the gentleman from California.

The gentleman from California's resolution would repeal the EPA decision to grant a waiver to the California Air Resources Board rule on heavy-duty engine emissions of nitrogen oxides, or NOX.

I think it is interesting to point out here because the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley) pointed out in the debate on the previous two bills that these rules were approved by a nonelected body in Washington, D.C., for a waiver to a nonelected body in the State of California, so it is interesting that this is a waiver granted not to the legislature even of California but to the California Air Resources Board.

This standard, believe it or not, of the three California regulations we are discussing today, has probably the toughest timeline of compliance.

Now, Madam Speaker, you had to pay close attention because at first I thought my team had made an error. This rule would require a 75 percent NOX reduction beginning with model year 2024.

Now, you say: Wait, how can that be? This is 2025.

Well, that is a good question, and a lot of people are asking that question, and manufacturers are having to think maybe we have got to do something to be ready for retroactive action.

Now, if we were passing something, I am not sure we could do it retroactive in this nature. Maybe we could. Now we are going to have unelected bureaucrats on top of unelected bureaucrats affecting a regulation passed originally by Congress and authorized by Congress and now a regulation waiving a regulation on another regulation. It doesn't seem right.

Due to the fact that the EPA had not yet granted the waiver when the rule was made, there was already some uncertainty in the marketplace because of concerns with that retroactive enforcement that I just mentioned.

This rule would require--but, wait. Like the old Ronco commercials: But wait, Madam Speaker, there is more. This rule would require a 90 percent reduction in NOX from diesel engines beginning with model 2027 engines.

Do you think they are already getting those in production? I think they probably are, Madam Speaker. I think they are already working on it. Now, before it has even become the law of the land through a waiver of a regulation on a regulation, we have a 90 percent reduction in NOX being required. It would be a 90 percent reduction from current Federal emissions standards in 2027. Did I say that yet? I believe I did.

This California regulation is coming over top of Federal regulators in an effort to truly vilify diesel engines. Some diesel engine manufacturers will have compliance concerns, and already do, and they may end up having to purchase NOX credits from electric vehicle manufacturers and may have to purchase credits.

Now, that credit is a Federal credit. The emissions credit trading system adds another layer of complexity to the compliance and shows how difficult it can be to marry up the Federal standards with these new California standards. It is essentially allowing some Federal credits to be transferred to the California pool depending on vehicle sales in California. Confusing, convoluted, and hard to follow. You bet it is.

Another burden that manufacturers will have to account for are extended engine warranties and new testing procedures that will inevitably have some costs that will have to be borne by fleet operators who purchased the trucks and by consumers who will have to pay more in freight costs for everyday goods. We have already seen lower truck sales in California and, as expected and previously predicted by one of our earlier speakers, increased purchase prices.

Briefly, I will address the congressional resolution of disapproval process. We have heard a lot today about all this, and I would submit to you that Congress under Article I should deal with repealing regulations, particularly when that regulation has significant impact and is as controversial as this one is.

In the end, it is the House that is covered; the EPA transmitted the California waiver notices of decision on the regulations in February. The notice was published in the Federal Register. The public was allowed to request a hearing and submit materials for the record. It is a rulemaking process on a rule and regulation, no matter what others may choose to call it. Madam Speaker, they can call it whatever they want to. I know what it is, and it is the waiver of a regulation by the Federal Government in order to give power to a regulation in California. They can call it a notice of decision. They can call it the epizooty if they want to, call it anything they want. We all know what it is. It is a regulation. To paraphrase Shakespeare: A rose by any other name still smells the same.

Accordingly, I would submit to you that we have jurisdiction. I would submit, further, Madam Speaker, that while CRAs can't be reviewed by the courts, when this passes--and I think it will, notwithstanding outside objectors--CRAs technically can't be reviewed by the courts.

It will be interesting to see when it gets to the Supreme Court because I believe the Supreme Court will agree with me: Regulators can call it whatever they want to, but when you are waiving regulations and allowing other regulations to take their place, that is subject to the Congressional Review Act and this process we are doing today.

I urge all Members to join me in voting in favor of the resolution of disapproval sponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), H.J. Res. 89. Even if you are not 100 percent in agreement, you ought to do it so that we can preserve the power of Congress because if not, we should dissolve and let California run everything, or perhaps my colleagues would like us to dissolve and make all decisions the subject of the Government Accountability Office instead of the elected Members of the United States Congress. I ask everyone to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 89.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

We keep hearing that it is not a rule and it is not a regulation and that kind of stuff. I just ask if it is not a rule, does that mean it is not enforceable, and does that mean it can be repealed by the next administration with a click of the fingers? I don't know the answer to those questions. I just raise them. If it is not official, is it even enforceable? That is the argument that my colleagues would have you believe.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), my colleague from the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this is the third of three regulations in the same vein. We have heard today about the process. We have heard today about the fact that California and those who opt in are still a minority of the States and a minority of the U.S. population. Yet, they are dictating in many ways to the rest of the country because of the oversized import of the California economy, et cetera.

The bottom line is that my colleagues have said in the last few minutes that this is somehow a States' rights issues. This is not a States' rights issue. This is the creation of a superstate: California. We have the right to override the waiver granted to them that gives them outsized weight in relationship to vehicles. In this case, it is the diesel vehicles. It is the trucks.

That being said, no one State should have this much power. The waiver should not have been granted in the first place. It is a waiver of a regulation, which makes it a regulation in effect, no matter what it is called. It is a waiver of a regulation.

Therefore, it is something that the Federal Government should be dictating, as you heard my colleague from California say. It should not be granting so many waivers. We heard one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that--I forget the number of years it had been, and I am paraphrasing--California had ratcheted up these regulations on various things over 100 times using various waivers.

This was created in 1967. California started down this path in '66. Congress recognized that in '67. The world is greatly different than it was in 1967. We shouldn't be allowing California to constantly ratchet up and then dictate to the rest of the States.

I was just a kid back in 1967, but I was alive. The world was vastly different even inside the United States. At that time one State doing something didn't have the impact or the ripple effect that it has today across the country.

I think we ought to vote ``yes'' on this resolution. I strongly encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 89. I think it is the right policy for all the reasons stated throughout this entire day.

Madam Speaker, I would say to you that if we don't want to see an increase in the price of trucks, the price of maintenance on trucks, the price of those trucks then carrying goods to market all over these United States, if we do not want to see that happen, we need to pass H.J. Res. 89 and stop this inappropriate waiver by the Biden administration's EPA.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Kathy Gearheart Smith, who passed away on March 12th at the age of 70.

Of the important roles Ms. Smith embraced in her life, perhaps one of the most meaningful was as a wife.

Ms. Smith was happily married to her late husband, Stephen, for many years. They shared a strong bond and growing appreciation for their greater family, which now includes three grandchildren.

In addition to her love for her family, Ms. Smith adamantly cared about the wellbeing of her community in the Roanoke Valley. This was most evident in her public service positions. She worked in my state legislative office, and later in my Congressional office.

These positions required Ms. Smith to be a professional representative for both offices and interact with thousands of constituents in the community. I was grateful for the true dedication, precise care and exceptional character with which she treated her job.

Ms. Smith was a great person to be around for my staff and myself. I appreciated her friendly demeanor and joyful nature during her long tenure helping me and the people of the 8th District of the Virginia House of Delegates and Virginia's 9th Congressional District of the United States House of Representatives.

Those left to cherish her memory are her sister, Diana Gearheart; brother, Chuck Gearheart; sister-in-law, Jennifer Gearheart; son, Jake Smith; grandsons, Caleb, Ethan, and Micah Smith; and numerous brothers and sisters-in-law, nephews, and nieces.

The impacts that Ms. Smith had on her community will surely be missed. I will cherish my memories of her and celebrate her life.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 282 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule providing for consideration of four measures: S.J. Res. 18, disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Customer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''; S.J. Res. 28, disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications''; H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025; and H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.

House Resolution 282 provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28, both under closed rules, with 1 hour of general debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees and provides each one a motion to commit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1526. This is the act relating to the U.S. District Court's issuing nationwide injunctions, and that is to be considered under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 22, the Safeguard America Voter Eligibility Act under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees and provides one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides that House Resolution 23 and House Resolution 164 are laid on the table.

Mr. Speaker, this rule deals with several issues. The underlying legislation included is essential. One of the bills included in this rule is H.R. 1526 led by the Representative from California (Mr. Issa).

This bill limits the ability of U.S. District Court judges from issuing nationwide injunctions. I would like to be clear. This bill does not prohibit nationwide injunctions, Mr. Speaker. It merely establishes a mechanism to issue nationwide injunctions under appropriate circumstances.

Under the bill, if two separate States from two separate U.S. judicial circuits are reviewing the same case, a panel of three randomly chosen judges would be convened to determine whether issuing a nationwide injunction is appropriate action. These injunctions would then have the ability to be appealed directly to the United States Supreme Court.

I believe that no one district court judge in the United States anywhere, whether it be the Western District of Virginia, the Northern District of West Virginia, one of the districts in California, or anywhere else in the country, should have the ability to make nationwide decisions as a district court judge.

This bill would prevent forum shopping and somewhat restore checks and balances to our judicial system in the country by providing that we have a randomly selected three-judge panel.

Also included in this rule is H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or the SAVE Act, championed by the Representative from Texas (Mr. Roy). The bill prohibits noncitizens from voting. Let me get that through. There has been some confusion. It prohibits noncitizens from voting.

It does so by requiring States to obtain proof of citizenship when registering individuals to vote in Federal elections. Even though most States prohibit noncitizens from voting in their elections, these noncitizens are still registered to vote in some States and in some cities around the country.

Also noncitizens sometimes get registered by mistake. I am not saying this happens by design, but it happens by mistake, and it largely happens due to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 known as the Motor Voter Act. This requires every person applying for a driver's license with their State's Department of Motor Vehicles to receive a voter registration application. Various States and their Departments of Motor Vehicles don't generally check citizenship status before giving out the voter registration application. Some do, and hopefully this legislation will encourage more to do so.

During the last election cycle, we even saw that some Federal agencies were instructed to hand out registration forms without the ability to discern whether the person receiving the form is a citizen or not. So the noncitizen shows up at a government office, and they are given a form. They fill it out. I am not saying they are doing it for ill purposes, Mr. Speaker, but they fill it out. They are given the form, and then they fill it out. As a result, they end up showing up on some voter rolls, and there is the potential that they may vote improperly in one of our Federal elections.

Last Congress, then-West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner testified before a House Administration

Committee hearing to discuss his efforts to protect West Virginia elections. His State has removed 400,000 names from voter registration rolls and implemented voter ID requirements.

This bill attempts to fix the various loopholes and ensure that only eligible United States citizens are voting in our country's Federal elections. Now, Mr. Speaker, I keep saying Federal elections. If a local government wants to have folks who are not citizens voting, then that is their right. It is the same thing with the various States. It can happen out there if that is what they want, but in the Federal elections, that is where Congress gets into the act.

Also, this rule includes two resolutions of disapproval that both passed the Senate. S.J. Res. 18 nullifies the rule finalized by the Biden administration in December of 2024, that would be roughly 4 months ago, that attempts to cap overdraft fees.

Overdraft fees are a necessary evil that I believe in most cases actually help the consumer. Now, I understand nobody wants to pay it, but transparency is certainly helpful for consumers on an issue like this, and I am not sure these caps are the way to go.

Traditionally, things like overdraft fees are regulated by State regulators. It is unclear whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, can do this rulemaking under its cited authority in the Truth in Lending Act.

I have serious concerns that if this rule goes into effect that it can potentially bring about a criminal charge and even perhaps criminal punishment. I don't think the CFPB looked at all the criminal laws of the States, but having practiced for many years in the criminal courts of the Commonwealth of Virginia and having discussed it with the patrons of the bill, the same is fairly much true in the State of Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, if you use a draft or a check, and I know not a lot of people do that, but in the rural area I represent, they are still used frequently particularly by my senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, if you use a draft or a check to pay a merchant for something and that check comes back from the bank marked insufficient funds, then under Virginia law, you have created a presumption that the individual is attempting to defraud the merchant. That entitles, when the check is returned, the merchant to charge up to $50 for a returned check fee and to seek criminal penalties. If the check is not made good then they can seek criminal penalties which carry with it up to 12 months in jail for most checks and up to a $2,500 fine. That is certainly a whole lot more than the average fee for insufficient funds currently that are being charged by financial institutions, banks, and credit unions of about $35.

Further, Mr. Speaker, if a criminal charge is brought, then you may have the cost of an attorney, and you have to spend a day in court trying to work it out. If you pay it off after the charge is brought but before going to court, then you still have to pay all of the court costs associated with the charge being brought.

This is a significant problem that I don't think CFPB thought about when they were instituting this rule because if the banks and credit unions only allow a $5 fee, many of them will discontinue the use of this service. They won't allow you to sign up for it any longer, Mr. Speaker, and you could face potential criminal penalties.

Mr. Speaker, you can have the overdraft protection fee and pay about $35 or a $50 merchant fee and potential criminal charges. I think this is one that really does need to go away. I am surprised that my Democratic colleagues aren't supporting this, but they have other reasons.

S.J. Res. 28 nullifies another Biden administration rule that was finalized in December of 2024 as well that would create burdensome regulatory requirements for certain non-bank digital payments and digital wallet companies. This rule expands CFPB's regulatory power and was another attempt by the Biden administration to rush a rule out of the door for the CFPB after President Trump had been elected but before the new administration had the ability to have any input or consultation on how to carry out a public rulemaking process.

I am concerned this will cut down on people's use of innovative money transfer apps.

All four of these legislative items are steps in the right direction to cut down on red tape, ensure fair elections, and restore the system of checks and balances in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the rule to allow the House to debate the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Luna).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman apologized for the noises on the floor. I love the noises and greatly appreciate having babies around.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I rise for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, are there any points of order that properly lie against this resolution we are currently debating?

That is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will say, the reason I raise that issue is because what we have in this rule is really just a different form of the classic motion to lay on the table or to postpone indefinitely.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that you have to go back to Jefferson's Manual and old practices to figure that out. Yet, that is, in essence, what this rule does in relationship to the resolutions that have been discussed being laid on the table and not being brought up.

Mr. Speaker, I will talk about proxies for a minute, if I might. I have always been opposed to proxy voting. I would say to my colleagues, both on the other side of the aisle and my side of the aisle, if I were to ever break that feeling that it is not the right way to run this body, this might be the one that would tempt me. Yet, we can't.

Even though we are looking now at a certain class that we are all sympathetic to, moms and babies and new dads, there are already discussions underway for expanding that. Now that this has started to be discussed, there are all kinds of discussions around Capitol Hill about other things that should be granted the ability to vote by proxy.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that if Members agree with me that Representatives shouldn't vote by proxy, this is an appropriate technique under the rules of this House to allow us to, in essence, lay the issue of voting by proxy on the table.

I have heard people say: These folks followed the rules.

This is also a component of the rules, and oftentimes there is a clash of the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to quit making it sound like it is some kind of a nefarious thing. I don't agree with voting by proxy. I didn't vote by proxy when it was allowed. I didn't vote for anybody else by proxy when it was allowed. I have always been opposed to it. I think it is bad for the Republic.

In the long term, individuals may have differences of opinion. Individuals may disagree. Individuals may have circumstances where they that cry out to us to say: Shouldn't we allow it in this case?

Yet, I think it is bad for the Republic to go down that path. Just because others have done it and they did it when it was legal or proper under the rules and because some have had inappropriate behavior and done it when it wasn't supposed to be done, it does not mean that we should change the ruling or the rules of this House to allow it.

I was sitting here thinking. We have all kinds of rules, rules of the road, et cetera. Just because not everybody stops at a stop sign or not everybody stops at a red light doesn't mean that we should suddenly change the law and say people don't have to stop. That is the circumstance that I think that we are in currently.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

I believe the gentleman is referencing a Member by name, and I don't believe that is proper.

There you go.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have failed. I thought I made it very clear that when I talk about overdraft fees, I am talking about the little guy because the CFPB's rule doesn't recognize the laws of the States that make it a crime in some cases to have an overdraft. It makes it so that the little guy is going to pay more. CFPB didn't take that into consideration, in my opinion. They didn't understand that.

Yet, my colleague on the other side just talks about somehow Republicans are only looking out for the big businesses. No. No, this rule sets up the debate for overturning the CFPB rule and helping the little guy not face $150 to $750--that is in Virginia; I don't know about other States--in charges if they have to deal with a criminal penalty. $50 from the merchant, and they are worrying about a $5 to $35 fee. Yet, they are not paying attention to the real harm. That is it.

We have heard lots of arguments on all the issues included in this rule, and so I think it is important that we pass it. I urge everyone to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Brenda Faye Graham Johnson, who passed away on March 26th at the age of 77.

On March 31, 1947, Ms. Johnson was born in Christiansburg, Virginia, but was raised in nearby Salem, Virginia. After graduating from Andrew Lewis High School, she attended Marion College in Marion, Virginia. Ms. Johnson graduated as part of the last class from Marion College.

Following her studies at Radford University, where she earned a teaching degree, Ms. Johnson taught in the classroom. She stayed close to Southwest Virginia during her life and raised a family with her loving husband, Don, by her side.

In addition to her service as an educator, Ms. Johnson helped contribute to the Republican Party of Virginia in various capacities.

Primarily, Ms. Johnson held officer roles in the Republican Party of Bristol and the Republican Party of Salem, two units who helped shape local conservative candidates for elected office.

Virginia's Ninth District Republican Committee benefitted from Ms. Johnson's loyalty and service, particularly in her role as the Committee's official secretary. This sometimes required her throughout the year to drive away from home to assist the Committee with its meetings and business.

A woman of strong faith and appreciation for the Lord, Ms. Johnson was an active member of Salem's First United Methodist Church.

In addition to her husband, family remaining to cherish her memory includes her children, Jessica J. Funk (Kevin), and Lauren J. Paige, both of Richmond, Va.; grandson, Declan Funk; siblings, Connie Melton (Carter), Jennifer Brown (Bill), and Bradley Graham; and many nieces and nephews.

I always appreciated her dedication to the Republican Party and helping the various Republican committees where she was living.

Further, Brenda and her husband helped to start the Salem G.O.P.'s annual Olde Salem Days Breakfast which has grown into a major event for candidates seeking a Republican nomination in Virginia.

Ms. Johnson's love for Southwest Virginia and her community was strongly evident. Whether it was helping a student with reading or passing out campaign literature to voters, Ms. Johnson made a profound impression on those around her. She will be missed.