Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the courageous service of Bristol, Virginia's Swift Water Rescue Team.

Formed in 2019, the group operates under the Bristol Fire Department and is the only such swift water team in Southwest Virginia, a region that encompasses more than twenty localities and is bigger in landmass than some U.S. states.

The personnel of the Bristol Rescue Team have fought heroically in the most trying of times.

In August of 2024, Tropical Storm Debby battered much of the Southeastern United States.

A month later, Hurricane Helene ravaged much of Virginia's Ninth Congressional District and devastated numerous communities. Historic levels of flooding resulted from the natural disaster.

In February of 2025, major winter storms hit the region and prompted widespread flooding and, in some cases, community evacuations.

These major weather events were met by courageous rescue officers to respond to severe emergency situations.

The Rescue Team tallied more than 80 rescues in the last six months. Their work is crucial as the region faces recovery challenges.

In the face of a historic natural disaster and other extreme weather events, the Bristol Swift Water Rescue Team has performed admirably.

The people of Southwest Virginia are grateful for the Bristol Swift Water Rescue Team, the hours the Team spends training, and its preparation to carry out brave rescue missions for local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of George Lester, who passed away on January 31st at the age of 85. Mr. Lester is regarded as one of the most important business leaders and community advocates in the Martinsville-Henry County region of Southside Virginia.

On April 4, 1939, Mr. Lester was born. His father, of the same name, raised his son and the rest of his family in the Martinsville area. Mr. Lester graduated from Martinsville High School before attending college at North Carolina State University.

In 1963, Mr. Lester started working full-time for the family business.

Working hard and dedicating great amounts of time towards the family business, Mr. Lester eventually took over the business. He became president in 1974. Following this rise to a monumental role, Mr. Lester reorganized the business as the Lester Group, and diversified the business. New deals included work with lumber manufacturing, real estate and retail store development, among other endeavors.

Because of Mr. Lester's leadership, the Lester Group promoted strong economic growth in the region. This growth contributed to robust job creation and business development. His tenure lasted until 2018, when he retired from the Lester Group.

Another significant idea by Mr. Lester resulted in the founding of an influential committee that advocated for a future highway connecting Roanoke, Virginia, and Greensboro, North Carolina. The modern-day I-73 corridor greatly benefited from the creative and authentic thinking of leaders like Mr. Lester.

Appreciated by many in the community, Mr. Lester dedicated a lot of time to different local projects. He served as chairman of the local United Way, the Martinsville-Henry County Chamber of Commerce and the separate Martinsville-Henry County Economic Development Corporation. In recognition of his work on the Chamber, he received the Heck Ford Award, the Chamber's highest honor. A charitable and thoughtful man, Mr. Lester gave land for civic causes and also donated to charitable organizations. Numerous community leaders and officials credit Mr. Lester for his positive impact on the region.

Mr. Lester is survived by his wife, Lee; daughters, Elizabeth Walsh of Lynchburg, Virginia, Ann Papadakis of Melbourne, Australia, and Sara Jedelsky, of Monroe, North Carolina; stepdaughter, Tracy Turlington of Barboursville, Virginia; mother-in-law, Ina Richmond; 11 grandchildren, and many other family members.

Mr. Lester was an exceptional business entrepreneur and community member. The Martinsville-Henry County region are incredibly grateful for his powerful leadership and influential support. He will be missed by many, including his family, his community and myself.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 177, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 61) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing'', and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 61.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bill, H.J. Res. 61, 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 ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Rubber Tire Manufacturing.''

My resolution will repeal this suspect rule that the Biden administration pushed out after the election but before President Trump's inauguration.

This rule was flawed to begin with. It was published on November 29, 2024, after the election of Mr. Trump but before his administration could take office.

Further, as required by the Clean Air Act, EPA performed a risk and technology review specifically on rubber tire plant emissions as recently as 2020. After the risk and technology review, the EPA concluded that the pollutant thresholds and emission regulations already in place were sufficient and protected public health with an ``ample margin of safety.''

Madam Speaker, under the Clean Air Act, this should have been the end of it, as the EPA is only required to review and revise the standards on emissions every 8 years. To make matters worse, the EPA basically said the only way to comply with the new regulation is to buy regenerative thermal oxidizers, which are essentially flares that burn off the smokestack exhaust at the specific tire plants.

These devices are expensive and likely will not be able to be installed within the 3-year Clean Air Act deadline. It is my understanding that the tire industry estimates that it will cost about $100 million to get the regenerative thermal oxidizers ordered, fabricated, and installed and then about $20 million more per year to operate the devices.

While this cost is across several affected plants, these figures are certainly much higher than the EPA's estimates.

I also note that this rule does not affect most of my constituents. I am sure some of my constituents drive from eastern Henry County to work at the Danville Goodyear plant located in the district of my neighbor, Congressman John McGuire, and that facility would be affected.

In the Rules Committee, I was erroneously under the assumption that this might affect my Yokohama Tire plant today. I still submit, Madam Speaker, that it could affect them because what happens at the EPA, if they do it now on the larger producers of tires, et cetera, at some point, they are going to look at doing it at the medium-sized producers.

The Yokohama plant that employs a lot of people in my district, in my hometown of Salem, Virginia, could be affected long term, but currently it affects Danville. Now, that is about 16 miles from the edge of my district. In my area, because it is a rural area, lots of people drive more than 16 or 17 or 18 miles, whatever the number is, to get to a good-paying job like these facilities have that make tires for the American market.

This rule wouldn't be the first time my constituents have seen an environmental rule from the government inflicting economic pain on our rural part of Virginia. Several years ago, an EPA rule ended up closing down a plant in a small town.

In the end, the Supreme Court struck down the rule just a few weeks after the coal-fired plant closed. It was in Glen Lyn, Virginia. A few weeks after the plant was closed by Appalachian Power, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA hadn't done it right. The rule was improper and it was invalidated by the Supreme Court, but they are not going to come back in and reopen the plant.

Those jobs are lost. The jobs of the people who worked there, who then ate lunch at the local lunch facilities, or who might have bought a car, or might have bought something else there in the very small town of Glen Lyn, no longer did so. As a result, the people there lost their livelihood, their economic resilience because of an erroneous EPA regulation.

The EPA's callous disregard for my peoples' jobs is not forgotten. What happened in Glen Lyn took about a decade. The population dropped, and last year, they turned in their charter to be a town. They are now an unincorporated census area inside of Giles County, and it all started with an EPA regulation that was misguided and improperly done.

I submit, Madam Speaker, that this regulation is probably not properly done, but that is for the courts to decide. We can fix it, though, here in Congress with this Congressional Review Act.

Some on the other side may say, if we repeal this regulation, we are letting tire manufacturers get away with unchecked pollution.

Madam Speaker, I say not so. That is not so. The EPA's National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants would still exist. All major sources would still have to abide by their Clean Air Act Title V permits and various other Federal and local controls and regulations.

Regardless, if Congress were to pass this joint resolution, rubber tire manufacturers will still be subjected to pollution regulations. The EPA can always come back with an updated hazardous air pollutant standard if they can ever get actual data indicating specific and significant pollution. They don't have that now.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to join me in voting in favor of H.J. Res. 61 because it is important for peoples' jobs and for the principle of not doing willy-nilly regulations at the end of an administration in order to pursue something that does not have verifiable data indicating specific and significant pollution.

Mr. Speaker, further, as alluded to in this New York Post article, titled, ``Jen Psaki mocks reporter when asked about Keystone pipeline job losses,'' so-called ``green jobs'' are not plentiful enough to make up for jobs lost because of EPA regulations.

[From the New York Post, Feb. 8, 2021]

Washington--White House press secretary Jen Psaki on Monday

mocked a reporter who asked when workers on the canceled

Keystone XL pipeline would get ``green jobs'' promised by

President Biden.

It's expected that up to 11,000 jobs will be lost following

Biden's day-one decision to immediately shut down

construction of the pipeline that was supposed to carry oil

from Canada to Texas--leaving South Dakotans reeling and

1,000 people immediately out of work.

``Where is it that they can go for their green job?'' Fox

News reporter Peter Doocy asked Psaki at her Monday afternoon

press briefing, referring to Biden's promise to create good-

paying union jobs in the green energy sector as his

administration attempts to end the nation's reliance on

fossil fuels.

``That is something the administration has promised and

there is now a gap so I'm just curious when that happens,

when those people can count on that?'' Doocy added.

``Well, I'd certainly welcome you to present your data of

all the thousands and thousands of people who won't be

getting a green job,'' Psaki snarked. ``Maybe next time

you're here you can present that.''

``But you said they will be getting green jobs. I'm just

asking when that happens?'' Doocy responded, noting a report

by the Laborers' International Union of North America that

found 1,000 union jobs on the Keystone project would

``immediately vanish.''

Another 10,000 construction jobs expected to be created by

the project have also been nixed by Biden's decision.

A prominent union leader and Biden ally, AFL-CIO president

Richard Trumka, lashed the decision in Axios on HBO interview

Sunday, saying Biden should have also announced where he

would replace those lost jobs.

``I wish he hadn't done that on the first day, because the

Laborers International was right. It did and will cost us

jobs in the process,'' Trumka told Jonathan Swan.

``I wish he had paired that more carefully with the thing

that he did second by saying, `Here's where we're creating

jobs,' '' he went on, saying he believed Biden knows his

announcement was a ``mistake.''

Trumka, a former coal miner, also signaled his skepticism

at Biden's plan to transition coal, gas and oil workers to

clean energy jobs, saying he was subject to a similar failed

policy.

``You know, when they laid off at the mines back in

Pennsylvania, they told us they were going to train us to be

computer programmers,'' Trumka said.

``And I said, `Where are the computer programmer job at?'

`Uh, they're in, Oklahoma and they're in Vegas and they're

here.' And I said, `So, in other words, what we're going to

be is unemployed miners and unemployed computer programmers

as well' '' he recounted.

But Psaki swatted away the criticism and made a vague

promise that Biden would put a jobs plan forward in the

coming weeks.

``He has every plan to share more details on that plan in

the weeks ahead,'' she said when asked how Biden would

support workers left jobless by the decision.

Biden's climate czar John Kerry was also condemned by

Republicans last month as ``out of touch'' when he suggested

that energy and coal workers impacted by climate change

efforts could ``go to work to make the solar panels.''

Last month, the Biden administration unveiled its $2

trillion Green New Deal-fueled environmental plan, which

includes eliminating coal, oil and natural gas as electricity

sources by 2035.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, let me assure you that those of us on this side of the aisle have no desire to make people sick.

The number one test in a community as to whether or not there is a likelihood of being sick or healthy is whether or not the people have a good, strong economy and have a job. What this regulation would do is to take that away.

As I talked about with Glen Lyn, if you start shutting down factories, you shut down towns, and people don't have jobs. Then you will have people who are clearly going to have more issues with their health than they currently have.

Further, in regard to the various things that my colleague said, I have seen it before where the EPA goes out and they create a maximum achievable control technology and they claim, oh, it is out there or it will be soon, and industry tells me it doesn't exist.

Now, in this case, it does exist. It is just very expensive and it would take longer than the Clean Air Act gives them in order to install it. This is where I think we should take care of it instead of letting the executive branch do all of our work for us. They used proxy data and used total hydrocarbons instead of looking at what the EPA is charged with doing, which is the actual hazardous air pollutant. They don't have that data, and when they last checked for that data, they said there was an ample margin of safety.

November 29, they suddenly throw this regulation on the books as a final rule without referencing how the ample margin of safety that was found in 2020 somehow disappeared in a 4-year time period, how it went away. They don't have any data to show actual hazardous air pollutants. They used proxy data. That is not good enough for regulations that could cause the curtailment of tire manufacturing in the United States.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer), my colleague.

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

Obviously, when, in 2020, the EPA found there was an ample margin of safety, there was no reason for the Energy and Commerce Oversight Committee, which at the time I chaired, to do an oversight hearing on something that appeared to be a matter which on its face would not require new regulation.

The EPA, of course, does things that sometimes are perplexing to many of us. I would submit as well that one would have anticipated they would have used, as they are supposed to, an actual hazardous air pollutant study or standard. Instead, they used a proxy study of total hydrocarbons.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly), my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly).

Is the gentleman trying to tell the American people that it is only a minor rule, as one of our colleagues said, it is only a minor rule if it doesn't apply to you?

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Kelly) for a response.

Also, if it doesn't take your job?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize none of us wants the world polluted. The gentlewoman indicated that somehow this was going to affect arsenic and lead. I suppose, in a theoretical world, perhaps it could, but there are other regulations on tire manufacturing that may deal with that.

That is not what this Congressional Review Act is about. It is about a regulation that was put into effect because, instead of looking for things like arsenic and lead or actual hazardous air pollutants, the EPA used a proxy measurement and measured carbon dioxide. They didn't use a test to come up with this rule based on arsenic or lead. It was a proxy using carbon.

Further, somebody said earlier, Mr. Speaker, that we were stripping away critical regulations. I would say, Mr. Speaker, if it was so critical, why did the Biden administration wait until November 29 with less than 2 months left in their term? If it was so critical, why did the EPA in 2020 find that there was an ample margin of safety in the regulations that already existed?

Mr. Speaker, this is not about stripping away all regulations on tire manufacturing. It is one specific ill-advised, ill-timed, expensive regulation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the EPA was under no obligation to do this regulation. They may have been under an obligation to look at unregulated hazardous air pollutants, but nowhere in the statute does it allow for proxy carbon studies.

Hydrocarbons are not listed as a hazardous air pollutant. The plain language, I repeat, does not authorize proxy or surrogate studies to say: Well, we looked at it, and there is a lot of carbon. Therefore, we are going to make specific regulations that cost hundreds of millions of dollars and may or may not cost jobs.

That is not their job. That is the purpose of the Congressional Review Act. It is to rein in unreasonable, improper, or irrational regulations done at the last minute by an outgoing administration or by an incoming team.

This is not something that needs to be on the books to protect health. They did a proxy study. They don't have actual data that shows that this would do any good at all. It will perhaps cause significant curtailment in production at certain facilities of tires made in the United States. It is our job as Members of Congress to prevent this travesty.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the arguments that we have made have now worn out. We have used up the mileage on these arguments. Now, we get to vote ``yes,'' and voting ``yes'' is where the rubber meets the road and gives us a more sound regulatory scheme related to tire manufacturing.

Mr. Speaker, I ask everyone to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 177, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 42) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to ``Energy Conservation Program for Appliance Standards: Certification Requirements, Labeling Requirements, and Enforcement Provisions for Certain Consumer Products and Commercial Equipment'', and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 material on H.J. Res. 42.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of

the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen).

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, I find this debate fascinating and interesting. That may come as a shock, because it is really pretty boring. However, I find it interesting because my colleagues have just said: Why are we spending time worrying about this little regulation from the Department of Energy when employees are losing their jobs?

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that if this is such a small, little regulation, I mean it is merely a labeling thing that doesn't cost very much according to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, then what in the world were we doing having DOE employees?

We have got so many DOE employees that they have time to spend all day, weeks, and months creating a new regulation that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim doesn't really have much value to it, it is just a little label.

I would submit, Mr. Speaker, it costs more than what DOE has estimated, because even though they spent countless hours coming up with this new regulation, I would submit that in my opinion it looks like they only counted the cost of the new labels. That is because somebody has to send it to legal, and we have to determine if the new certification has any legal consequences.

Does it say something on the new appliance or on the appliance that is already out there but is in the production process that might cause a legal issue?

I would submit it costs our manufacturers not only the money to print the label but an employee to come up with the new label before it goes to legal to be looked at. Somebody has to pay those people.

While the cost of the labels might only be $200,000, there is a cost to each company. That is because this is broad. It doesn't apply to one or two little items. It applies to all kinds of stuff.

I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is where your real cost is, and instead of being concerned about coming up with some kind of a new certificate that has to have a new label, maybe we shouldn't have been doing that at the DOE. Maybe we should have been focusing on making small nuclear reactors available for communities and working on ways to provide a stronger electric grid; but no, no, by golly, we are going to have the best labels in the world. That is what we need.

Mr. Speaker, I submit to you this regulation needs to go away, but my colleagues have told me that it is insignificant. If they don't think it is significant, I think we should get rid of it, particularly when it is going to cost businesses.

It may not cost every business, maybe one manufacturer out of dozens and dozens, or maybe hundreds. I haven't done a study, Mr. Speaker. I will just tell you that it has been interesting to listen to all of this discussion.

I will remind you, Mr. Speaker, that over the last 4 years, the Biden administration finalized more than 30 new or updated energy efficiency standards that ended up totaling over $60 billion in costs. This is just one of many cuts to our manufacturing base in the United States and our producers as well as across the world.

The Biden administration was out to regulate or restrict nearly every appliance or piece of equipment relied upon by every single American household and business.

Today, the House will vote on H.J. Res. 42 to repeal yet another Biden-Harris administration rule that only serves to increase red tape and costs to manufacturers. We know what happens when the costs to manufacturers go up; the American consumer pays the price.

In October 2024, the Department of Energy finalized new and amended certification, labeling, and enforcement provisions for about 20 different products, including dishwashers, central AC, heat pumps, and more.

I am going to get to the ``and more'' in a minute.

Today, an American homeowner spends about 34 percent more money on appliances than they did just 15 years ago. From 1995 to 2005, the average homeowner replaced their appliances about every 12 or 13 years. These days families get new appliances about every 8 or 9 years. Maybe it is because they are not as efficient as they used to be. I don't know.

However, I do know on one washer-dryer standard, according to the data--I believe this was DOE data--there was a 46-year payback on a device that was expected to last or be expected to be used by the homeowner 8 to 9 years. We are going to make it more efficient, but, by golly, it is going to cost you, Mr. Speaker. It is going to cost you, and it is going to take 46 years to pay back on an item you will only use for about 10.

Consumers are buying more frequently in part because some energy standards make the appliance wear down more quickly. That is what my suspicion was all along.

Consumers don't see the savings. These appliances just don't last as long because they have got to run their washing machine three times.

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, one time I had a constituent contact me, and she said: Morgan, look at this picture. I take a hose from my backyard to fill up my washing machine because under the new guidelines there is not enough water in there to actually get my clothes clean on one time, so I supplement it with the backyard hose and add more water to my washing machine.

Yeah, that is really, really good policy.

I remember an old DOE energy standard from a few years ago that one of my constituents told me about related to the washing machine. I just told you that story, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is instructive.

This final rule will only expand already broken efficiency standards, increase costs, and slow the development of reliable, efficient products.

On a previous DOE standard for electric combination washer-dryers, DOE said in plain black and white in Federal regulations: payback period 46 years.

DOE itself estimates this final rule might only cost $213,000, but that is $213,000 we don't have to spend. As I said, I don't think it is that cheap. I think by the time you get finished with the lawyers and everybody who has to review it and all the time that is spent by your employees, Mr. Speaker, it is a lot more than that in reality.

DOE assumes manufacturers will incur these additional costs, but we know better than that. They will send that on to the consumer, and it will cost us more money.

It also has a DOE expansion in data collection. In one example regarding the data collection, Mr. Speaker, you have to collect the data for dedicated purpose swimming pool pump motors.

Historically, DOE only collected data demonstrating compliance with efficiency standards. However, in this final rule, DOE aims to expand reporting requirements to store data for potential future conservation standards.

If you are trying to run a pool, whether at your house or a commercial operation, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that is an additional cost. You are

having to collect all this data, Mr. Speaker, or if it is built into your machine, then that is going to cost more, and it is unnecessary. We are making everything more complicated.

Mr. Speaker, you will be surprised to know that at one time in my life I was a Virginia certified pool operator. That is why I brought this over. I keep this on my desk. When the baby pool pump--that would qualify as one of these dedicated purpose swimming pool pump motors-- when it broke down, and it would have been in 1980, I found that when we had to get it replaced, this was the gadget that had worn out.

It reminded me that we were moving from brass, in this case, to plastic, and so I have kept it on my desk all these years.

Who knew it would become important today because probably some kind of a label should have been on here if we had today's standards in place. I don't know. All I do know is that when you are trying to get something replaced, Mr. Speaker, particularly in the case of a swimming pool, when the pump breaks, it means you are going to have to shut your facility down, and you are not looking at the label on the new pump motor. You are just getting it in there as fast as you can. You are driving over to the swimming pool supply place, Mr. Speaker, or you are calling them up and saying: Get over here now.

That came out of the Hunting Hills Country Club baby swimming pool where I was the manager that summer and was a certified pool operator to have that job.

Now we are going to be collecting data on all this stuff. Mr. Speaker, you would think we were TikTok in the way we are collecting data on swimming pool motors and other devices.

This overcollection jeopardizes confidential business information. It might not have mattered to the swimming pools I worked with, but it complicates the matter. It is an inappropriate use of the certification process.

Additionally, many of the provisions in this final rule are also duplicative of existing reporting requirements by certain States, EPA, and Energy Star. This increase in red tape will do nothing to lower appliance prices, and it will do nothing to lengthen product lifetimes or to bring real energy savings to the American homeowner.

Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Clyde) for his leadership on bringing this to our attention. I urge all Members to join me in voting in favor of H.J. Res. 42, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 161, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 35) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions,'' 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 and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 35.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 35, 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 ``Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions,'' sponsored by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

H.J. Res. 35 will repeal the disastrous rule by the Biden administration that punishes our small and midsize energy producers here in the United States. The so-called waste emissions charge starts at $900 per metric ton for last year's reported methane emissions. It increases to $1,200 per metric ton for 2025 emissions, and it increases one more time to $1,500 per metric ton of emissions for 2026 and the years thereafter.

There are about 9,000 small and midsize independent petroleum drillers in the United States. These mostly small operations are responsible for developing 91 percent of oil and gas wells, producing 83 percent of America's oil and 90 percent of our country's natural gas. We should be thanking them, not punishing them.

Mr. Speaker, if we do not act, American jobs and energy production will be lost. This is really, for all intents and purposes, a punitive tax on natural gas. These folks are not our enemy. They help make the fuel that we use to heat our homes, et cetera.

Mr. Speaker, I and other Republicans are not opposed to the regulation of methane. I see it as an asset that should not be wasted when it is practicably able to be captured, but there are cases where it is not practicable. However, we are opposed to bureaucratic overreach that, intended or not, will force some of these small producers out of business, making the energy supply in the United States less.

We should instead be making rules that work with industry to facilitate the progress that our country's energy producers have already made in reducing emissions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

When debating this resolution, H.J. Res. 35, is it appropriate to discuss superfluous matters to the matter at hand currently on the floor?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: I meant no offense and no criticism. As the gentleman from the other side of the aisle and from New Jersey knows, I love parliamentary procedure. One of the reasons that we have parliamentary procedures and rules of parliamentary procedures is to make the place more efficient.

We are talking about H.J. Res. 35 today. We are not talking about every other ill that anybody might think is going on. The focus today in this debate period is H.J. Res. 35.

That is my only point. I meant no criticism of Mr. Tonko or the Democrats in this matter. Just trying to get us on track with parliamentary procedure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Begich).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the chairman of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Dakota (Mrs. Fedorchak).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of support for H.J. Res. 35 from the United States Chamber of Commerce, a letter from the National Federation of Independent Businesses, and last, but not least, a letter from the American Petroleum Institute.

February 24, 2025.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the Congressional Review

Act resolution of disapproval aimed at overturning the

Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Waste Emissions

Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems: Procedures for

Facilitating Compliance, Including Netting and Exemptions

rulemaking. Disapproving this rulemaking would help give

consumers access to affordable energy to heat their homes and

businesses to power manufacturing.

Disapproving EPA's natural gas tax rulemaking is expected

to reduce energy costs for consumers, making heating,

cooking, and electricity more affordable for households. For

manufacturers, it lowers operating expenses, enabling greater

investment in production and job creation, which in turn

stimulates economic growth and strengthens the overall

economy. Disapproving this tax will also provide relief to

small businesses and industries so they can allocate more

resources toward growth, innovation, and workforce expansion.

This natural gas tax threatens to increase costs to

consumers and businesses and undermines economic

competitiveness. We urge Congress to act swiftly in passing

this resolution of disapproval.

Sincerely,

Neil L. Bradley,

Executive Vice President, Chief Policy Officer, and Head of

Strategic Advocacy,

U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

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

It is interesting. I heard some speakers--and everybody is just trying to talk about these issues from their viewpoint. I get it. However, I heard some speakers on the other side of the aisle say today that we are just catering to Big Oil and others.

Then I hear there were discussions with larger folks, and those are the people who are okay with it. I hear from Representatives from places like Alaska, North Dakota, and Texas whose constituents oftentimes are small mom-and-pop operations. It is hard to think of oil and natural gas that way, but that is the way it is in those regions. They say this will, in fact, hurt them and this is disastrous.

I suspect, Mr. Speaker, the reason that we have this dichotomy, this difference, is that a lot of times bigger institutions, bigger organizations, can afford to take on a new regulation. It will cost them a little bit of money. It will make the cost of production go up a little bit, but because they are large, they can spread that out over a lot of different items or a lot of different--I guess, in this case, it would be oil and gas measured in cubic feet, or whatever the measurement is these days. As a result, they can say this is a cost spread out over a large piece of the pie so it is not that big of a deal to us.

As I said in my opening, there are 9,000 small and midsize independent petroleum drillers in the United States. These, mostly small, operations are responsible for developing 91 percent of oil and gas wells, producing 83 percent of America's oil, and 90 percent of our country's natural gas.

Those are the folks who are most upset about these regulations and why we need to repeal them. We are going to break the back of those 9,000 small and midsize independent petroleum drillers who are providing us with affordable gas, affordable heat for our homes through natural gas, and affordable products made out of natural gas and petroleum.

Mr. Speaker, it is the right thing to do, and I encourage all Members, both Democrat, Republican, and any who may think of themselves as independent, to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 35.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me time.

My colleagues on the other side cry: Action, action. However, in February of 2025, there will be no action unless we pass H.R. 27, the HALT Fentanyl Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this bill, H.R. 27, the HALT Fentanyl Act, that I have championed along with my colleague and good friend, Representative Latta from Ohio. We have worked on this bill for 4 years.

This bill is critical to stop the trafficking of fentanyl analogues into our country by giving the law enforcement officers the tools they need and also allowing streamlined research into these substances.

This bill has the support of multiple law enforcement agencies and other groups to pass the bill as it is.

This week, the Trump administration released a statement in support of the HALT Fentanyl Act. Last Congress, the Biden administration even supported various provisions in the bill, specifically making fentanyl analogues permanently schedule I and allowing more research into them.

The bill passed with wide bipartisan support last Congress. It wasn't just one Member on the other side of the aisle who joined me, Mr. Speaker. There were 74 Members who voted in favor of this bill.

This is one small step to solve the opioid crisis in this country. We cannot let the temporary scheduling expire at the end of March.

To those who don't know, we have some law right now that helps protect us, but at the end of March, it is gone. We can't do that.

The Senate introduced an identical version of this bill with broad bipartisan support. With the passage of this bill, I am hopeful that H.R. 27 will quickly move through the Senate and get to the President's desk to become law.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support this bill so that we can actually have action and not rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 93 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 further ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and reported out a rule for one measure, H.R. 27, the HALT Fentanyl Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides for 1 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 provides for one motion to recommit.

As most Members know, unfortunately, we all know somebody 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 increased presence of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues or fentanyl- related substances, 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 4 grains of sand.

A loophole the cartels use and have tried to use to traffic illicit fentanyl into our country is by changing just one component of fentanyl's chemical structure in order to create a fentanyl analogue or a fentanyl-related substance. 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, which is now set to expire on March 31, 2025.

Along with my colleague, Mr. Latta from Ohio, we decided to introduce H.R. 27, the HALT Fentanyl Act.

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

The HALT Fentanyl Act also promotes research by improving the registration process to eligible individuals so that they can conduct studies on schedule I substances with appropriate safeguards.

In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we have heard testimony that there may be as many as 4,800 individual analogues or fentanyl-related substances. Our experts at the NIH, the FDA, and others have studied roughly 30 to 40 of those 4,800 analogues or fentanyl-related substances.

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 or even find a better use or a better opportunity than the current fentanyl that we use.

Because fentanyl has a proven medical use, it is considered a schedule II narcotic, as the Speaker knows, having practiced medicine for many years.

Illicit derivatives of fentanyl, also called fentanyl analogues, currently have not demonstrated a medical value.

Let me be clear. This bill will have no impact whatsoever on physicians' ability to administer fentanyl in medical settings.

The HALT Fentanyl Act deals specifically with fentanyl analogues or fentanyl-related substances, not medicinal fentanyl.

The Biden administration even released a statement when this bill passed through the House last Congress stating that they supported permanent scheduling and streamlined research for fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances.

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

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

According to a 2021 GAO report, there was a 90 percent decrease in these fentanyl analogues coming into our country the year they were first placed 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 is sending the precursors of fentanyl and fentanyl analogues to the cartels in Mexico, who are then bringing it across our border.

By making these analogs permanently schedule I, it removes the incentive for the cartels to traffic these analogues or fentanyl- related substance drugs into our country. China even realized the risk of fentanyl analogues and permanently scheduled those analogues on their strictest schedule. Other countries have followed suit and done the same.

Last Congress, this bill cleared through the Energy and Commerce Committee on a bipartisan basis and then passed on the House floor with 74 Democrats voting in favor.

The bill has the support of many law enforcement agencies and other entities calling for the need to pass the bill as it is.

We must act quickly to make the scheduling order permanent before it expires again at the end of March.

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand there are all kinds of concerns on the other side of the aisle, but we are talking about the HALT Fentanyl Act.

I could stand here and talk about Burma. We heard today that the President has extended the emergency situation with Burma, that undemocratic country where they overthrew the democratically elected government and how Burma, also known as Myanmar, is the largest cultivator of opium products and the producer of heroin globally, second only to Afghanistan. That doesn't have anything to do with the HALT Fentanyl Act. The HALT Fentanyl Act is a good bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from New York (Mr. Langworthy), who will talk about the bill some more.

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

Mr. Speaker, I keep thinking I am here to talk about the HALT Fentanyl Act, but they keep talking about all kinds of other things.

My colleagues have acknowledged that the HALT Fentanyl Act passed in the last Congress with a large majority, yet here we are using this as a vehicle to talk about everything else they think is going wrong in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I have a little bill here. It does some good. We ought to pass it. If my colleagues want to talk about lots of other stuff, they are entitled to. That is their right. However, I don't want the focus taken off the HALT Fentanyl Act. It is a good bill. It helps law enforcement. It helps slow down the flood across the southern border. That is what we are here about today.

I know if the motion on the previous question fails, then they are going to introduce a different bill. However, my understanding is their bill completely eliminates and doesn't have anything in their language about halting fentanyl.

This is something a large majority of Congress wants to get done. Let's get it done. Let's stop all the rhetoric. Let's stop trying to point fingers at us and everybody else for other things. Let's just do our job. I think that is what the American people want us to do.

In fact, I hear a lot of times from my constituents back home that they are tired of seeing these gigantic bills. It sounds like what my colleagues on the other side want is some more gigantic bills that people vote on. It is kind of like what the former Speaker said: We have to vote for it so we can find out what is in it.

I would rather vote on bills that I know what is in it. That is why I read all the bills if I plan to vote for it.

I helped write this bill. I am the lead sponsor of this bill. It is an easy bill to read. It is pretty straightforward in what it does, what it is supposed to do, and what we are trying to do. President Biden thought it was okay. He issued a statement in favor of it last term. This term President Trump says that he is in favor of it.

This is a bipartisan approach to solve a problem.

Does it solve all the world's problems, Mr. Speaker?

Of course it does not, but it solves a problem that our law enforcement has that helps the bad guys, the people making the precursors in China, the people in the cartels in Mexico flooding across our southern border with these harmful fentanyl-related substances and analogues. It makes it easier for our law enforcement people to focus on illegal fentanyl.

Mr. Speaker, fentanyl is legal for medicinal purposes, and it will be even after this bill.

There is something else that Democrats haven't mentioned. I mentioned it briefly, but I will talk about it a little bit further, Mr. Speaker. That is the component in this bill that allows for research on the 4,800 other related substances or analogues that we believe are out there. It is a rough number. Nobody knows until they get in and start experimenting, but we heard that testimony in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

There might be some benefit to some other analogue. There might be some benefit, but we don't want it out there on our streets or being used for medicinal reasons until we know for sure that it does something positive for society.

Right now, all the analogues that we have seen are either inert or just as bad as the illegal use of fentanyl, so this bill needs to be passed.

I understand the minority doesn't want to talk about this. My Democratic colleagues want to talk about everything else, but that is not why we are here today.

When I came to Congress, I pledged to read the bills. I pledged to talk about what it is we are talking about today and not talk about everything else in the world that I think we might be able to fix someday or that we might ought to do someday. There is a process for that.

As my friend Terry Kilgore used to tell me all the time, somebody would come up with an idea, and then they would want to put on some kind of an amendment or change the bill around when we had a nice, little, simple bill. Mr. Kilgore is a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, and he was my seatmate. He came up with a famous phrase when people wanted to rearrange the bill in a way that he didn't think was proper or put an amendment on it that would completely change the bill or, in this case, defeat the motion of the previous question in order to defeat the HALT Fentanyl Act and put forward some other bill. He would say: Well, you might have some points to make. I would say to the gentleman: Get your own bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of interesting. I keep thinking we are talking about the HALT Fentanyl Act, and then I hear all this other stuff.

Earlier, one of my colleagues said that we were cooking up some kind of a plan to cut--I forget what the number was now--$2.5 trillion or $2.7 trillion out of Medicaid. I haven't heard of any such plan being cooked up. I think that is just hyperbole, but that is my opinion.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman keeps asking about a pardon or about somebody who was pardoned. Well, I don't know if he has noticed or not, but I am not the President of the United States. I don't have the power to pardon. I don't get the information put on my desk about various individual pardons.

I didn't make any comments about pardons by the previous President when many people were pardoned or were sitting on death row and had sentences commuted. That is not what we are here about today.

We can get down into that trap if we want to, but I am just telling you that we are here today to talk about a rule for a simple bill that the majority of this House supports. I believe it is an overwhelming majority. I don't know if my colleagues admitted it was exactly 74, but they admitted it was a big vote last year. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle admitted it was a part of a package that the minority wanted to see pass on the floor at the end of last year.

I thought we were here to talk about this. I recognize that it is a free-for-all on the floor, but I just hate to get into all those kinds of things and start talking about this or that and, whether crossing the line or not, somehow casting aspersions that Members over here don't have independent wills. We certainly do, and I think my colleagues might recognize that from some of the things I said last night when I was being questioned.

Do I support the President? Well, of course, I do. Do I agree with everything he does? No.

As the old saying goes, I don't agree with my wife all the time. She certainly doesn't agree with me most of the time.

The bottom line is that I think the President is moving us in the right direction. One of those right directions would be to pass the HALT Fentanyl Act. Another is closing down the border, shutting that border down.

If Democrats want to talk about drugs coming across our southern border and want to point to an individual who is thought to be primarily responsible for some of that, how about the hundreds and thousands of people who were used by the cartels to bring illicit substances, whether it be at ports of entry or other places, across our southern border?

The President is cracking down on that, too, but that is not what this bill is about. This bill is about making sure that when our law enforcement officers arrest somebody and their preliminary examination indicates that what they have is significant, or even a small amount but generally significant amounts of a fentanyl-related substance, that when they go to court, they don't have somebody arguing in court that, wait a minute, this is not the fentanyl on schedule II, that this is a fentanyl-related substance but it is a left-handed molecule instead of a right-handed molecule or a right-handed molecule instead of a left- handed molecule.

I can say that, as a former defense attorney, I loved those kinds of arguments. As a Congressman, it is our job to shut those arguments down. The HALT Fentanyl Act stops those arguments from being made in court, which are basically spurious attempts to help drug dealers.

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues are not trying to help drug dealers. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are just here to try to make some other points today. Let's talk about this bill and the good that this bill can do.

My Democratic colleagues brought up substituting this bill with the SUPPORT Act. I am a cosponsor of the SUPPORT Act, which is carried by the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Brett Guthrie. That bill has a very good chance of passing this body, so let's let that bill go through its process, and let's let this bill, the HALT Fentanyl Act, finish out this process, get across to the Senate, get signed into law by the President, and start doing good work.

The Speaker might be asking why we have to do this at this moment. The answer is that we have had a rolling series of temporary bills on making the fentanyl-related substances schedule I because we all recognize the danger that these present to the American public.

Let's make it permanent and give our scientists an opportunity to look at some of those other 4,800 analogues or fentanyl-related substances to see if there is anything there that might be beneficial to mankind, that might be a reversal of an overdose, that might be a better and less-addictive pain reliever. Let's let them do that research.

They can't do that research without the HALT Fentanyl Act, and the efforts of the defense attorneys for the cartels can't be crippled by constantly passing temporary bills because any day that it is not in effect is a day that lawyers will take advantage of.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, darn, I wish I had known 40 minutes ago we could talk about anything we wanted to, that this time was not really to talk about the rule present before us today or the underlying bill, but was to talk about whatever we wanted to, whatever is on our agenda, their agenda.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, this is why the American people don't have confidence in Congress, because they can't follow the bouncing ball. We are here to talk about the HALT Fentanyl Act, and we are talking about everything including the kitchen sink.

If I had only known that 40 minutes ago, I could have brought over all my CRAs that I am interested in getting passed, all my bills that I think are fascinating and interesting that I can't seem to get out of committee, at least not in the past. I could have talked about all kinds of things.

I understand that may not be the practice of the Rules Committee. I am new. The gentleman is absolutely right to remind me of that. I have no problem with that. I just didn't know that we could talk about whatever we wanted to when the subject of the day is: Are we going to pass a rule that ultimately we hope will be put in place for the debate and passage of the HALT Fentanyl Act.

Then I heard, amongst a number of things today that I thought were just kind of odd, that my bill, the HALT Fentanyl Act, had been watered down.

Well, that is news to me because the bill, with the exception of changing a couple of paragraph numbers, the lettering on the paragraphs to make sure we were alphabetically correct, is exactly the way I introduced it. I don't think that is a watering down. A watering down is when you take a bill that is 20 or 30 pages long and you make it into a 2-page bill and you have it do half of what it was supposed to.

What this bill was supposed to do, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what this bill does. It takes and makes a permanent schedule I classification for all of the roughly 4,800 fentanyl-related substances or analogues. It provides for research on those fentanyl-related substances or analogues at our research institutions with certain safeguards to make sure we can continue to do research so that maybe we can find a better path forward, something that may help with our drug addiction issues, something that may be a better, less addictive pain reliever.

We want that research done, but until we have the evidence that one of those 4,800 analogues or fentanyl-related substances actually does good, we need to make them schedule I. They need to be on there so that the cartels can't use this as some trick in the courtroom to get out of trouble, to get a proverbial get-out-of-jail-free card.

My colleagues want to talk about everything else coming down the road, including an individual--and I haven't reviewed his file--who they claim was involved in the drug trade and who was pardoned.

I haven't heard them talk about Lairon Graham of Buffalo, convicted of heading a drug conspiracy and selling fentanyl, crack cocaine, and heroin, who was pardoned by the previous President, Mr. Biden.

I haven't heard them talk about Valentino Shine, convicted of narcotic sales, along with sex trafficking and

distribution of crack cocaine, who was pardoned by the previous President.

Now, I personally don't think any of that is relevant to today's discussion, and I recognize that that is apparently the practice of the Rules Committee. I find it surprising. I think it is a sloppy practice, but if that is the practice, then next time I will be sure to bring my wish list with me and we can talk about everything except the bill we are supposed to be talking about.

It does make you wonder and think that everybody at home watching this, both of them, are confused because we are not talking about the bill that we are supposed to be talking about. I hope Congress some day gets around to talking about the bill that it is supposed to talk about, whether it is my bill or somebody else's bill.

Today, I will try to make my remarks as much as I can about passage of the rule for the HALT Fentanyl Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I offer the gentleman from Massachusetts an opportunity for whatever comments he has remaining.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just have to say that I am appalled. I understand they get the right to say whatever they want to during this time of debate on the rule for the HALT Fentanyl Act. I understand that, but they say you have to choose what side you are on, then bring up Elon Musk, and then say vote ``no.'' This bill has nothing to do with Elon Musk. This bill is about fentanyl-related substances and fentanyl analogues. It perplexes me, other than it is an attempt to confuse everybody on what this bill is about.

If they want to make all those statements, they can, but I would think they would be in favor of getting this bill done. If you are going to choose to say whose side you are on with this bill, you are making a choice. You are making a choice. We have an opportunity today, right here and now, to pass a rule and then tomorrow to pass a bill that will make a step forward in stopping the cartels, the Chinese precursors, and the folks who are doing the bad things in our country and in other countries from bringing their substances into this country and trying to use a gimmick, a chemical technique, saying that it is not really fentanyl, that it is a fentanyl analogue, and get around our laws.

That is what this bill is about. Every Member ought to be in favor of that. Why you wouldn't be in favor of at least bringing that bill to the floor and having a vote on it is beyond me. If we are choosing sides, I am going to choose to take a step forward. I am going to take a step forward to try to stop this scourge of fentanyl poisoning, fentanyl analogue poisoning, and fentanyl-related substances coming into our country. That is the side I am going to choose.

I understand they want to talk about all kinds of other things. I think it is a pretty darn good bill, and I think we should pass it.

Now, let me get to my script. I would like to reiterate the importance of the bill to permanently schedule fentanyl analogues as schedule I while still allowing for research into these substances.

This is one small step in fighting the opioid crisis our country faces. If we allow this temporary extension to expire in March--as it will if we take no action, if we choose the wrong side today and tomorrow--it will bring back the incentives for traffickers to bring these fentanyl analogues and fentanyl-related substances into our country.

I truly don't believe my colleagues on the other side want that. I understand they get fired up on the floor sometimes and say things that maybe later, in retrospect, they think maybe they shouldn't have gone that far.

If we are going to choose sides, I urge everybody to pass the rule and choose the side of stopping the fentanyl scourge in our country, the fentanyl analogue scourge in our country, and urge the passage of this rule and for final passage of the underlying bill.

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 Edwin Randolph ``Randy'' Leach, who passed away on January 12th at the age of 68. Randy is remembered for his sound legal mind and dedicating a great legal career in the Roanoke Valley.

The birth of Randy Leach occurred in Raleigh, North Carolina, on November 27, 1956.

Following his childhood and adolescent years in North Carolina, Mr. Leach attended academic institutions in Virginia. He earned a B.A. from Hampden-Sydney College before graduating from the renowned law school at William & Mary.

A career devoted to public service soon followed. Randy moved to the City of Roanoke to begin a career as a public defender.

Later, he joined the Roanoke County Commonwealth Attorney's office. For 14 years, he served as Chief Assistant Commonwealth Attorney.

In 2002, the citizens of Roanoke County placed their trust in Randy Leach to serve the County and elected him as Commonwealth Attorney.

Appreciated by many, he ran for re-election four times and ran unopposed in each of those campaigns. He retired from his distinguished role as a constitutional officer in 2019.

As a practicing attorney in the Roanoke Valley during the same time, I had the pleasure of working with Randy throughout his tenure in the Commonwealth Attorney's office. I had many cases in Roanoke County and often Randy would be the prosecutor in a case I was defending.

Randy also regularly frequented Mac & Bob's restaurant, a popular site in Salem, Virginia, and was beloved there by the regulars.

Randy Leach is preceded in death by his parents, Bill and Jimmie Ruth Leach. He leaves behind his older brother, Ken Leach; nieces, Leslie Wall (Chad), Lisa Yancy, and Eden Gauss (Jai); younger brother, Keith Leach (Janis); and nephews, Michael, (Meghan), and Casey.

Randy Leach was a dedicated lawyer whose service and exceptional legal talents on behalf of Roanoke County was appreciated by many. He will be sorely missed by his family, colleagues, friends and the Roanoke Valley community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Gerald ``Tom'' Clemens, who passed away on December 26th at the age of 88. Mr. Clemens is remembered for his sophisticated legal background and as an overwhelmingly caring family member.

Mr. Clemens was born in Prices Fork, Virginia, on March 20, 1936. After a childhood spent in Montgomery County, Mr. Clemens stayed close to home and attended Virginia Tech in Blacksburg for his undergraduate degree. While a student at Virginia Tech, he was an active member of the Corps of Cadets.

Later, Mr. Clemens became a member of the U.S. Army and achieved the rank of Colonel. He then attended Washington and Lee University School of Law and received his Juris Doctor in 1960. In 1961, Mr. Clemens and his wife, Pat, moved to Salem, Virginia. Mr. Clemens joined a local law firm and continued his legal work for many years in the Roanoke Valley.

The Virginia General Assembly recognized Mr. Clemens' legal excellence, appointing him to the General District Court and later to the 23rd Judicial Circuit Court bench. I practiced law in #ont of him in both courts. He was always a thoughtful and learned Judge.

Once he retired from the bench in 1997, he practiced law with his son, Chris, at the Salem-based firm, Clemens and Clemens.

My mother taught Mr. Clemens' son, Chris, in school. One of her class activities involved asking her students to bring in political campaign buttons for extra credit or show. Judge Clemens told me on several occasions that school assignment for Chris began his passion for collecting political memorabilia.

Mr. Clemens was also very proud of his children and grandsons. He collected records of their achievements. Some of his grandsons have played water polo with my family and many others from Salem during the summer. Needless to say these experiences gave me a close-up look at Judge Tom Clemens and, Mr. Speaker, let me assure you he was a very fine man and a true southern gentleman. He set a high standard as an example for his family and all of us to strive to achieve.

Mr. Clemens was preceded in death by his parents, Jack and Clairmont Clemens; and his brother, Fred Clemens. He is survived by Pat, his cherished wife of 64 years; and children, Cindy (Marcy), Chris (Meg), and Charles (Whitney); four grandsons, Luca, Christopher, Will, and Grant; and his niece and nephews.

Mr. Clemens was a respected lawyer and judge whose service to his clients and the Commonwealth was outstanding. His profound love for his family and community was evident to many. I thank Mr. Clemens for his friendship, and wish his family peace during this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Chief William ``Bill'' Brown, who passed away on January 24th. Chief Brown is remembered for his integral roles in advancing the safety

and well-being of his community in Montgomery County, Virginia.

After his birth in West Virginia, much of Mr. Brown's early life centered in Southwest Virginia. As one of 12 children, he graduated with the last class of the all-Black Christiansburg Institute in 1966.

Following his graduation, Mr. Brown answered his country's call and enlisted in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. He served the 9th Infantry Division and rose to the rank of Sergeant.

Upon his return home, Mr. Brown pursued a career in law enforcement. In 1970, the Blacksburg Police Department hired Mr. Brown, making him the first black police officer in the New River Valley.

For more than three decades, Mr. Brown executed his role with steadfast professionalism and respect. This work was recognized by American Legion Post 182, who awarded him the 1984 Outstanding Young Law Enforcement award.

The dedication and work ethic Mr. Brown brought to the Blacksburg Police Department resulted in his appointment to Chief of Police in 1994. He continued as Chief until his retirement in 2006.

His outstanding tenure with the police department was marked by strong relationships, positive attitudes and a legacy of contributions to the police department.

Following his tenure with Blacksburg PD, the citizens of Montgomery County elected Chief Brown to a seat on the County's Board of Supervisors. His service on the Board lasted from 2008 to 2015. Chief Brown was trusted by his peers to serve as the Board's chairman for his last two years before retiring.

As a result of his public service and contributions to the Blacksburg community, the new William H. Brown Blacksburg Police Department building is named in his honor.

Mr. Brown is preceded in death by his parents Melvin & Ulysses, brothers Herbert and Kenneth, and sister Dr. Marlene Faye Brown.

Mr. Brown will be dearly missed by his loved ones, including his wife Rebecca Brown, to whom he was married for 55 years, sisters Dorthy M. Vanderhall, Denise Holland (Mike), brothers Melvin C. Brown Jr., John C. Brown (Brenda), Earl T. Brown, Mack W. Browh (Karen), Gregory V. Brown (Laurie) and Theron U. Brown, his children and grandchildren.

I join Montgomery County in mourning Chief Brown's passing. Peers, community members and countless others praise Mr. Brown for his profound leadership and lifetime service to the citizens of Montgomery County. We are extremely grateful for Chief Brown's admirable service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of Worley ``Skip'' Bishop, Jr., who passed away on September 7th, at the age of 83. Mr. Bishop dedicated his life to his family, students, and the community of Floyd, Virginia.

Worley ``Skip'' Bishop Jr. was born on October 14, 1940, to Worley S. ``Sam'' Bishop, Sr. and Estella ``Jackie'' Bishop. He was a natural athlete and excelled at playing baseball, basketball, and golf.

Skip had a big heart for his home in Floyd, Virginia. He served as Mayor for nearly two decades and was determined to make Floyd a vibrant, thriving community.

He taught at Floyd County High School, in Floyd, Virginia and deeply cared for his students and athletes.

He coached for 35 years earning various accolades including: District Golf Coach of the Year six times; District Baseball Coach of the Year four times; Timberland Golf Coach of the Year four times; State Basketball Coach of the Year in 1985. Under his direction, Floyd County Basketball was the State Runner Up in 1987, and the Floyd County High School Golf team became State Champions in 2000, 2001, 2006, and 2007.

Skip's greatest love was his family and was proud to be known as Dad and Papa. His marriage to Martha Ann Bass Bishop for 59 years, produced loving and joyful, as they shared two children, four grandchildren, and six great-grandchildren.

He leaves behind his loving wife, Martha; daughter, Sandra ``Sandi'' Bishop Smith; son, Michael ``Mike'' (Jessica) Bishop; grandchildren, Stefan ``Sam'' (Michaela) Bishop, Sydney Smith, Joel ``Max'' (Hailey) Bishop and Sloan Smith; great-grandchildren, Sofia, Daisy, Killian, Echo, Revan and Fox Bishop; his dearly loved sister, Loretta (Jack) Bishop Hicks; and many beloved cousins and friends.

Skip is preceded in death by his father, Worley S. ``Sam'' Bishop, Sr.; his mother, Estella ``Jackie'' Bishop; his granddaughter, Sawyer Lynn Smith; and many beloved cousins and friends.

Worley ``Skip'' Bishop, Jr. was larger than life. Whether you called him Skip, Dad, Papa, or Coach, he is dearly missed and remembered by all who knew him, and especially in Floyd County, Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Mr. Marvin Dennis Reaser, Jr., who passed away on August 20 at the age of 84. Mr. Reaser was a talented musician and beloved band director whose career spanned over 30 years in Salem, Virginia, most notably leaving a lasting impact on Salem High School.

Mr. Reaser was born on July 28, 1940, in Nitro, West Virginia. His parents, Artie Lda Shomo and Marvin Dennis Reaser, Sr., raised him in St. Albans, West Virginia, with a very modest family lifestyle.

Music remained a necessity for the Reaser household, with piano lessons being a requirement for Mr. Reaser, his sister, Sally, and his brother, David. During his tenure at St. Albans Jr. High, Mr. Reaser played in the High School Band, which was directed by Alan Farley. Mr. Farley saw something remarkable about Mr. Reaser's musical ability and would not soon forget his four-year impact on the school.

Mr. Reaser then enlisted in the United States Navy after attending one year of college. He served for four years in the Navy, from Africa to Saudi Arabia, playing his trumpet for the Navy Band. Upon Mr. Reaser's return from his service overseas, he landed two teaching jobs as band director for two different high schools, notably without a college degree--a testament to his skill and talent.

By 1968, Mr. Reaser earned his undergraduate degree from Morris Harvey College (now University of Charleston) in Charleston, West Virginia. This same year, his former high school band director, Mr. Farley, who had been working at Andrew Lewis High School in Salem, VA, reached out to Mr. Reaser asking for him to apply to the Band Director job there. After landing the job one year later, Mr. Reaser joined a team that would shape his career for the next 30 years. With Mr. Reaser's directing style closely mirroring what he had learned from the United States Navy, the award-winning Andrew Lewis High Band was widely known for their student-led governance with emphasis on excellence and hard work.

When Andrew Lewis HS closed and its students were merged into Salem High School (Salem, VA), he became the band leader there.

Mr. Reaser, throughout his tenure as a band director, participated in a number of complementary pursuits, such as playing trumpet for gigs in the surrounding areas of Southwest Virginia, authoring a book, and even earning his master's degree in music composition from Radford University.

In 2001, Mr. Reaser earned a key to the city from the Salem City Council, marking his retirement from Salem City Schools on a day that was dubbed ``Dennis Reaser Day'' by the City of Salem. However, he knew he had more to teach and went on to work as a band director for the Hargrave Military Academy for three years and then assistant principal for First Flight High School for over 10 years.

Mr. Reaser retired for good in 2015 and spent the remainder of his life composing and arranging music, playing in community bands and surrounding himself with his family and friends. Mr. Reaser unfortunately was diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease in his final seven years, but always stayed ahead of his disease, averaging five to ten thousand steps per day instead of allowing the symptoms to overcome him.

While I was never a member of the Andrew Lewis High School marching band as a student there, I was proud to know Mr. Reaser and admired his work both with the marching band and all the other programs, particularly the annual Opus.

Mr. Marvin Dennis Reaser, Jr. was a true example of someone who delivers excellence to communities with his passion for music. He will be remembered for his outstanding work as a teacher, a veteran, and family man.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Sister Bernadette Kenny, who passed away on December 7, 2024.

``Sister Bernie'' came into the world on December 8, 1938. She was born in Boston, Massachusetts, and raised in Massachusetts. Her Catholic faith and interest in caring for others resulted in her joining the Medical Missionaries of Mary at age 19. She went to study nursing at Ireland's Lady of Lourdes Hospital.

After completing her training as a nurse and midwife, she served several missions in Africa, which included stints in Tanzania, Ethiopia and the Central African Republic.

In 1978, Sister Kenny moved to Southwest Virginia. Soon thereafter, she founded the Health Wagon in Norton, Virginia.

Southwest Virginia is a sprawling rural area, and access to health care services has always been a challenge for the local communities. For many people, it takes hours of driving to simply reach a hospital.

Sister Kenny founded the Health Wagon to address this challenge head on. The Health Wagon consisted of a Volkswagen Beetle filled with medical tools and supplies. Sister Kenny traveled in her Beetle throughout the coalfields region to meet the health care needs of the local communities.

She administered services to struggling residents free of charge in her quest to heal their bodies as well as heal their souls. She underscored the emotional aspects to health care, saying ``in most health care the emotional part is ignored.'' She added: ``health care is social; it's a way of identifying what's inside a person.''

Thanks to Sister Kenny's support, the Remote Area Medical (RAM) project, a popular and overwhelmingly successful venture that delivers free health care to various underserved communities in America, has hosted clinics in Southwest Virginia.

Because of Sister Kenny's strong leadership and fierce advocacy, the Health Wagon has sustained operations to this very day. The group takes pride in providing compassionate, quality health care to the medically underserved people in the mountains of Appalachia.

The indispensable endeavor to deliver vital health care to Appalachian communities, including the region's coal miners, would not have been so emphasized today if it were not for Sister Kenny. I join the people of Southwest Virginia and all of Appalachia in mourning her loss, but the lasting impact she had on the region will forever be cherished.

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Weber for yielding to me to say a few words about my friend, Dr. Michael Burgess.

First, I rise to congratulate you. You are finally graduating from Congress. You have done a great job during your two decades here, and your record highlights a staunch advocacy for healthcare legislation that addresses a variety of issues. Such issues include reducing healthcare costs, improving choices, and ensuring there are enough doctors in the country to tend to the healthcare needs of America's patients and veterans.

Through the Energy and Commerce Committee, your keen intellect and institutional knowledge have served as invaluable resources to me and to all. I am proud to have worked with you on healthcare-related legislation.

I have to tell you, when I first got to the Energy and Commerce Committee, we were all talking about ObamaCare. I looked back, and there was this guy I didn't know from Texas. He had the code sitting there, and it was about yea thick. Every now and then, a debate would start up, and somebody would say something, often from the other side of the aisle. They would say that we didn't do this or we did do this in the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare.

Dr. Burgess would be on point to respond because, notwithstanding the fact that he had the book there, he could immediately tell you whether or not what was being alleged was or was not in the act. On at least two or three occasions, I can recall him citing the page and then reading from it. We are talking about on the fly. We are not talking about 10 minutes to prepare or 20 minutes to prepare. We are talking about somebody finishes commenting, people yield time to Dr. Burgess, and he tells them what for--not in a bad way, not in a mean way, just: Well, that is not accurate. If you look at page 1206, you will see, yada yada yada.

There is no one else in the United States Congress who has that kind of knowledge of our healthcare system. I wish I could say I did. I do not. I don't know anybody who knows the American healthcare system the way that Dr. Burgess does. It is absolutely amazing the way his mind works. Of course, it takes hard work. Even when you have a good mind, it takes a lot of hard work, as well.

Further, I have to confess that not having as much to do when I first got here, I used to go hang out from time to time at the Rules Committee. Dr. Burgess was always there and was always asking key questions and important questions. Then, when I occasionally appeared in front of the Rules Committee, not just being a geek, he always asked the best questions.

Dr. Burgess, I greatly appreciate all of that. As you are leaving Congress, I don't think you can be replaced. There might be 2 or 3 or 10 individuals who can combine to replace your knowledge, but there is no one individual who can do that.

Now, I have to also confess to you tonight that it is not only that we share spots on Energy and Commerce, but we also share an affinity for country music. Earlier this year, at Dr. Burgess' personal invitation--I don't want anybody else to get mad at him--he invited me to join him and country music legend Randy Travis to discuss some issues related to the rights of performers in receiving benefits.

We have heard about issues from our colleagues on the other side where he was helpful. We heard about the stuff that he has done that has been great. He also has been working right up to the end to try to make sure that, on a myriad of different issues, the American policy is the correct policy.

I can't say enough about what a great asset Dr. Burgess has been to the United States Congress, to the Energy and Commerce Committee, to the Rules Committee. I am so thankful for his service and leadership.

Dr. Burgess, I wish you peace, and I hope that your time in Texas or wherever you may end up is a good one. I also hope that you will not be a stranger in the Halls of the United States Congress because, I have to confess again, oftentimes I would receive a phone call: Hey, Morgan, have you thought about doing this?

I hope to continue to get those calls, Dr. Burgess. It is always helpful. Thank you very much. God bless you, and God bless your family.