Providing for Consideration of S.J. Res. Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury Relating to the Review of Applications Under the Bank Merger Act; Providing for Consideration of S.J. Res. Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to ``Review of Final Rule Reclassification of Major Sources As Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act''; and Waiving A Requirement of Clause 6(A) of Rule Xiii with Respect to Consideration of Certain Resolutions Reported From the Committee on Rules

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 426 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 426

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 13) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury relating to the review of applications under the Bank Merger Act. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit.

Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 31) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Review of Final Rule Reclassification of Major Sources as Area Sources Under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act''. All points of order against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit.

Sec. 3. Con. Res. 14.

The gentleman from New York is recognized for 1 hour.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 426 provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 13 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit.

Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 31 under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their designees. It provides for one motion to commit.

Finally, the rule provides for the flexibility to consider a rule related to reconciliation on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee in order to expeditiously enact President Trump's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying legislation.

The rule before us presents an important opportunity for Congress to continue its work to reverse the last-minute attempts at regulatory overreach by the former Biden-Harris administration.

The rule includes consideration of S.J. 13, to provide for congressional disapproval of a Biden-era Office of the Comptroller of the Currency regulation titled ``Business Combinations Under the Bank Merger Act.''

In September of 2024, the OCC and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC, revised their approach to evaluating bank merger applications. The updated rule restricts a bank's ability to scale, manage risk effectively, and broaden product offerings, ultimately discouraging mergers altogether.

By dismantling a longstanding standard, and eliminating automatic approval for certain applications, the Biden administration's actions risk stifling competition and innovation in the financial sector. These changes will delay strategic decisionmaking among financial institutions and limit access to innovative financial services for everyday Americans.

For small- and mid-sized banks in particular, the rule imposes additional red tape and bureaucratic hurdles that hinder their ability to merge and compete with larger financial institutions. Despite what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may claim, the Biden administration's rule strengthens the dominance of the largest market players while undermining smaller, community-focused institutions, limiting consumer choice and consumer access.

We should strive for a regulatory environment that is streamlined, balanced, and rooted in practical oversight, one that protects consumers without obstructing innovation and competition. What we don't need are more Biden-era regulations that distort the market and smother opportunity with overreach.

S.J. Res. 13 will ensure that future bank regulators cannot repeat this ill-conceived rulemaking, and that financial institutions can continue to make strategic, innovative decisions that will ultimately benefit American consumers.

Also, the rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 31, providing for congressional disapproval of the rule submitted by the Biden EPA relating to review of final rule classification of major sources as area sources under the Clean Air Act.

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act lays out stringent compliance standards for facilities emitting over 10 tons of a single hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons of an aggregate. Facilities below those thresholds are classified as area sources and subject to more flexible requirements.

In 2020, under President Trump, the EPA adopted a more rational approach allowing facilities that significantly reduced their emissions to be reclassified as area sources. This commonsense change rewarded emissions improvements and reduced unnecessary regulatory burdens on American manufacturers and energy producers.

To no one's surprise, the Biden administration reversed course by reimposing the outdated and rigid ``once in, always in'' policy. This framework permanently locks facilities into strict major-source status, even if they make substantial efforts to reduce harmful emissions. That is not only unfair, it discourages environmental progress.

Whom did the Biden administration hurt?

They hurt the chemical manufacturing sector, which includes thousands of mid-sized companies representing hundreds of thousands of jobs. These companies have invested millions in cleaner technologies and equipment upgrades. Under this Biden-era EPA rule, their investments will not be rewarded with a lighter regulatory touch. In fact, despite upgrades to reduce emissions, they will continue to face the same higher regulatory costs.

Moreover, there is the pulp and paper industry, a critical employer in States like Georgia, Wisconsin, and Maine. Mills that switch to cleaner fuels or have implemented advanced scrubber systems will receive no regulatory relief under the Biden-era EPA's ``once in, always in'' rule. In a sector that already faces stiff foreign competition and very narrow margins, the Biden administration heaped further unnecessary burdens onto this industry, jeopardizing the jobs of thousands of American workers in the process.

Additionally, there is the independent and smaller scale refiner that often lack the scale of larger competitors but serve critical regional fuel markets. They may have made substantial environmental progress in reducing hazardous air pollutant emissions, but the Biden-era ``once in, always in'' rule locks them into compliance regimes that do not reflect their improved emissions profile.

Finally, let's not forget our small and rural manufacturing facilities in communities across this country, including in my own district in New York's southern tier. These facilities include metal fabricators and food processors, many of whom have taken proactive steps to cut emissions in very good faith. Under the Biden-era EPA ``once in, always in'' rule, these improvements to reduce hazardous emissions do not matter. They will still be treated with the same costly and burdensome regulatory regime. Simply put, the Biden EPA and its ``once in, always in'' rule not only disincentivizes innovation and cleaner operations, but it also threatens plant closures and kills jobs.

Mr. Speaker, you would have to be more concerned with appeasing environmental extremists than protecting American workers to support this punitive and counterproductive regulatory framework.

Through S.J. Res. 31, House Republicans stand up for the American workers and job creators. The CRA, ensures regulatory fairness and restores real incentives for emissions reduction. Without this CRA, even the most environmentally responsible facilities are punished, trapped under heavyhanded rules that do not reflect their cleaner operation.

Upon returning to office, President Trump and House Republicans focused on restoring commonsense governance: prioritizing American jobs, economic strength, and practical solutions. S.J. Res. 31, like other measures undoing ill-advised Biden-era policies, represents a decisive step in the right direction.

Let's get back to smart, forward-thinking policies that actually serve the American people, not far left activists and D.C. bureaucrats.

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

Mr. Speaker, the budget reconciliation bill is the work of 11 committees that have gone through full markup, that went through the full bipartisan process.

I sat through 27 hours in the Energy and Commerce Committee. I know full well that I had a front seat to the longest markup, just as my colleague did with his service on the Agriculture Committee.

That is not what we are here debating. Despite what some of my colleagues across the aisle are saying, the CRA that we are discussing right now is addressing standards for major and area sources that will actually promote cleaner and more environmentally conscious operations among manufacturers, refiners, and energy producers.

The rule implemented by the Biden administration reflects a flawed approach, one that eliminates incentives for voluntary emission reductions and imposes excessive regulatory burdens without delivering clear environmental benefits.

Under this policy, facilities that successfully reduce their actual or potential hazardous air pollutant emissions below the major source threshold are still prohibited from reclassifying as area sources. This means that even after substantial improvements, these facilities remain subject to the strictest and costliest regulatory framework forever, indefinitely.

This not only increases operational costs but also removes a key incentive for companies to invest in cleaner technologies and practices, something we should all be encouraging.

For example, take a chemical plant that emits hazardous air pollutants like benzene or formaldehyde. Under the Biden-era rule, if they invest millions in cutting-edge emissions control systems that reduce their pollution below the regulatory threshold, they get no relief from the major source permitting burdens.

The Biden-era rule entangles them in permanent red tape, discouraging innovation and undermining progress.

Under the Trump-era rules that S.J. Res. 31 would pave the way for, companies would have a financial incentive to invest in pollution control since doing so would actually reduce their compliance costs and regulatory delays. The result is cleaner air, a cleaner environment.

The reality is that most of these companies and the people who run them live in the very communities affected by emissions. They have every reason to care about cleaner air and healthier environments.

What they need is smart, flexible policy, not arbitrary and capricious restrictions that stifle growth and reduce competitiveness. S.J. Res. 31 would restore a proven framework that recognizes and rewards emissions reduction. It allows regulatory classifications to reflect a facility's current environmental impact, not a legacy status based on past emissions.

This flexibility fosters continuous improvement and aligns environmental goals with economic incentives. This is not about weakening protections. It is the contrary, actually. It is about applying regulation in a way that actually works, delivering clean air, encouraging innovation, and maintaining the strength of America's industry.

Mr. Speaker, this is a commonsense path forward to a cleaner, more sustainable future, one that supports jobs, growth, and the environment.

This should be a no-brainer for my colleagues who claim to be the champions of effective environmental policy. Let's not be fooled by their rhetoric. The reality is that many on the other side of the aisle are beholden to a vocal and uncompromising wing of the environmental lobby, groups that would rather see American workers laid off, manufacturing plants shut down, and entire communities economically gutted than support balanced, commonsense regulatory reforms.

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot of dramatic words from my friend and colleague across the aisle about the reconciliation process. Let's take a moment to remind them of what they did when they were in the majority.

During the 117th Congress, when a Democratic-led House considered the last reconciliation bill, also known as the Build Back Better Act, the process was a little messy, to say the least. The gentleman talks about CBO scores, and it is certainly something that we are working very hard on.

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

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

Regardless if we do have a JTC score or a CBO score or what that score says, I don't think any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will vote for this bill at the end of the day.

People in glass houses really shouldn't throw stones here.

In fact, this process on their side of the aisle was so messy that two separate rules had to be passed out of the Rules Committee, each one self-executing a new manager's amendment as negotiations were ongoing and changes continued to be made. It was constantly a shifting landscape and, frankly, chaos at times.

I know that the gentleman from Massachusetts won't let facts get in the way of a good story. He pounds the table over the use of same-day authority. The reality is that the first rule for Build Back Better extended what is essentially a martial law procedural lockdown of the House floor, granting broad, same-day authority that allowed the majority to jam through changes without proper scrutiny.

Let's not forget the second rule for that bill was brought to the floor and voted on the very same day. It was reported from the Rules Committee, exactly the kind of tactic our colleagues are now clutching their pearls while opposing.

The fact is that governing is hard. The process is rarely a smooth one, but the American people elected President Trump, a Republican majority in the House of Representatives, and a Republican majority in the United States Senate, and gave us unified government with a clear expectation for Congress to deliver on this agenda.

The Rules Committee will continue to use the tools at its disposal to facilitate the passage of historic legislation, just as our colleagues did when they were in charge.

Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle, they love to cherry-pick the facts when it comes to the timing of committee proceedings, especially in reference to the Rules Committee's upcoming meeting. They bemoan the late start and the timing of tonight's meeting. Yet, they actively ensured one committee markup after another for the legislation before us tonight, they ran hours and hours, if not days on end.

Why did those markups run as long as they did? They ran that long because Democrats engaged in the legislative process, which is their right.

The same principle applies to the Rules Committee. On this committee we have a long tradition of meeting late into the evening to complete our work. This isn't new, and it is not unique to our current majority. It is simply how the legislative process operates when the House has its full agenda.

We need only look at the Committee's operations under Democratic control to see a long history of meetings in the dark of night. Under Democratic control of the Rules Committee, we have seen things like House Resolution 587, which the report was filed at 3:46 a.m. House Resolution 481, the report was filed at 2:09 a.m. House Resolution 597, the report was filed at 3:43 a.m. House Resolution 903, the report was filed at 2:25 a.m. For House Resolution 445 in the 116th Congress, the Committee adjourned at 12:20 a.m.

Late-night sessions are not partisan anomalies and unique to the Democrats. These are precedents that Democrats themselves have maintained for years.

Let's be clear, this is the way the Rules Committee has operated when necessary, regardless of which party holds the gavel. It is about getting the work done. In fact, tonight we may not be reporting in the dark of night at all but rather as the new day has begun. I expect Mr. McGovern to take full advantage of our unlimited debate rules in the Rules Committee to make sure that that happens, and I see my second sunrise in a couple of weeks here.

I invite my colleagues to set aside the theatrics and focus on the work at hand, and I encourage my colleagues on the other side to prove me wrong.

Once again, my colleagues across the aisle are doing what they do best. They spread misinformation, and they try to sow fear into the hearts of the most vulnerable in this country about Republicans' work through the budget reconciliation process.

Let's set the record straight. President Trump and House Republicans are working to strengthen and secure and sustain Medicaid.

Democrats, through their reckless spending and unwillingness to enact commonsense guardrails themselves, have worked to undermine this critical program. We are laser-focused on protecting the absolute most vulnerable among us, Americans with disabilities, pregnant women, children, and our beloved seniors, by putting in place commonsense guardrails to ensure that those truly in need always get the care that they deserve. That means making sure that precious Medicaid resources go to the living, breathing Americans who actually need the care, not bureaucratic bloat, fraud, or people that have come into this country illegally and have been put on this system.

We are also ensuring Medicaid's long-term sustainability by rolling past costly Biden-era regulations that are driving up the program's price tag by hundreds of billions of dollars.

Let's be clear, Medicaid should always serve American citizens first and foremost, and that is why reinforcing citizenship verification, another commonsense step that the American people believe in, not only protects the program but saves the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

Yes, we are, reintroducing Clinton-era work requirements. One of the most popular things Bill Clinton achieved in his Presidency, and he worked with Congress to get it done, was bringing commonsense work requirements to social welfare programs.

It would only apply to able-bodied adults without dependents. It is something that we should all be able to agree on. If you can work, you should work. It is a step that was once broadly bipartisan, but today, our Democratic colleagues would rather let Medicaid spiral into insolvency with no solution in sight than support a basic principle that if you are able to work, you should.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have heard noise from across the aisle, words like ``cruel'' and ``harsh,'' and all the hyperbole you could expect to be thrown around to score political points from their base. Let me be clear. Those labels belong not to those fighting for reform but to those who would refuse commonsense changes today and instead allow this critical safety net program to become fiscally unsustainable, leaving behind the very people that depend on it every single day.

If we want Medicaid to be there in its entirety for the next generation, for those that truly need us, who we need to be working for every day, we must act now. House Republicans are committed to doing just that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I didn't serve then, so I am not sure.

Mr. Speaker, we had to go and do a little research, but in the 110th Congress on August 1, 2007, when considering House Resolution 3162, the Democrats did indeed convene a Rules Committee meeting at 1 a.m., and they gaveled out at 3:07 a.m.

They have done exactly the same thing that we have all heard about, the ranting and raving and the waving of arms here today. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. However, rules for thee and not for me is typically the way this works.

We will do the work of the Rules Committee. We will continue to pass this legislation and deliver real relief for working families in this country. We have listened to a lot of rhetoric about millionaires and billionaires. It sounds like Bernie Sanders is in the Chamber, but really this is about the working people of this country.

If we do nothing and the tax cuts expire in this country, it will be a $4.5 trillion tax increase on the American people. It will cut the child tax credit in half. It will cut the standard deduction in half that puts real money into the pockets of working families. In my district, it is about $1,700 a month that the current Tax Cuts and Jobs Act delivers. We deliver even more in this reconciliation package.

That might not sound like a lot to some of the people on the other side of the aisle. For my constituents, that is a couple of mortgage payments. That means real relief for working families in western New York.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here once again to protect Americans from the heavy hand of Biden-era regulations. The slew of midnight rules forced on the American people by the last administration pose a direct harm to our Nation's economy, and it has threatened jobs.

The pieces of legislation before us today under this rule are not filler. They are quite the opposite. The resolutions passed by the Senate and here before the House are lawmaking exercises. Democrats' dismissal of these CRAs speak volumes as to their lack of care and compassion for the serious ramifications that the regulatory agenda has had on the economy, on consumer choice, and on the environment.

My Democratic colleagues certainly wouldn't want to focus our time today on these CRAs because they are part and parcel to dismantling the regulatory agenda that they wed themselves to for 4 long years under President Biden.

What was the result of their commitment in the Biden-era regulatory agenda: $450 billion in new regulatory costs on the economy. That may just be numbers on paper for a D.C. bureaucrat, but the amounts of jobs lost, manufacturing shuttered, and communities decimated for folks outside the beltway is what it is really all about.

The CRAs before us will allow Congress and the Trump administration to continue its important work of reversing harmful regulations and unleashing the promise of the American economy. I strongly support the rule before us today.

The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

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

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 2753) to amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to provide for a point of order against reconciliation measures that cut benefits for Medicaid or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 5. Clause 1 (c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 2753.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source