▶ 0:07:46Good afternoon. The committee will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Today, the rules committee is convening to consider two separate measures. SJRES 13 and SJRES 31.
▶ 0:08:03SJRES 13 provides for congressional disapproval of a rule submitted by the Office of the Controller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury relating to the review of applications under the Bank Merger Act. The OC's bank merger rule is as biased as it is flawed.
▶ 0:08:23It discourages competition within the industry, erect swaths of red tape that ens snare bank merger application and erodess the integrity of our financial system. This rule is not grounded in sound policy.
▶ 0:08:41It serves to kneecap small and midsize banks while restricting access to credit for millions of customers across the This is yet another Biden era rule that we must dispense with and we intend on doing so.
▶ 0:08:58SJRES 31 provides for congressional disapproval of a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to quote review of final rule reclassification of major sources as area sources under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. end quote. EPA's rule is misguided.
▶ 0:09:23It unfairly binds American energy producers in a regulatory straight jacket while removing a common sense incentive for them to lower their own emissions. The former rule that was put into place during President Trump's previous term encouraged these energy producers to take positive and substantive steps to reduce emissions without the looming threat of a regulatory barrage.
▶ 0:09:50But this EPA rule runs counter to that and it operates on a premise that is unjust. What America needs is a vigorous energy manufacturing posture and not one that's riddled with endless regulatory hoops that energy producers are required to jump through. Achieving American energy dominance is not found through overregulation.
▶ 0:10:17It's found through good, sensible policies that are not heavy-handed and inflexible. The EPA's rule is not grounded in good sensible policy and that's precisely why it must overturned. Over the last four years, the private sector found that contorted found itself contorted into knots thanks to the previous administration's proclivity to regulate the hell out of everything.
▶ 0:10:47But it's a new year, a new Congress, and new administration. We're moving in a better direction. With that, I look forward to today's discussion and I now yield to Mr. McGovern for any comments he wishes to make. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, let me just say, uh, these are two lousy, terrible measures that you have us considering here today. More help for big banks and big polluters. That's been the entire Republican agenda so far.
▶ 0:11:15Help the polluters, help the banks, help Wall Street, help the CEOs. you guys want to help everyone except everyday people who actually need help. It's honestly beyond um shameful. But to be honest, it's it's not even worth uh it's not even worth it to talk about these CRAAS. What I do want to talk about is the fact that this morning after midnight, actually, Republicans told us that we would be considering their budget reconciliation bill at 1:00 in the morning on Wednesday.
▶ 0:11:46If Trump's big, beautiful bill is so great, why not debate it when people are still awake, wouldn't you want everyone to know how great it is? Why are you debating it at 1:00 in the morning? I think that's prime time in Guam. Uh, any person with half a brain cell can immediately figure out why you want to notice a meeting for 1:00 a.m. is because you don't want people to know what's in your bill. Remember what Trump said, close your eyes and vote for it.
▶ 0:12:15That's exactly what you're all doing because you all know exactly what the bill does, how unpopular it is, and what regular Americans think of it. It's going to give a huge, massive, historic tax cut to billionaires, paid for by stealing, stealing from the American people, ripping away Medicaid from parents and grandparents, ripping away food assistance from kids. This is not this is not hyperbole, my friends. We're not fear-mongering. No matter and no matter how many times you use the word that doesn't make it true.
▶ 0:12:45Uh your big beautiful scam is a historic giveaway to those at the very very top financed and paid for by the rest of America. So again I ask if this bill is so great why debate it at 1:00 in the morning and we all know the answer and we all know why. And the icing on the cake and we're not even sure what's in that bill. You have us a meeting on at 1:00 in the morning.
▶ 0:13:09Uh, we have a meeting on the calendar and you're still arguing amongst yourselves behind closed doors about how much you want to basically screw over people on Medicaid. Late last night, there were reports that some of the extreme holdouts strong armed the leadership into fasttracking Medicaid cuts so that people could be kicked off their healthcare as soon as 2026. That's next year.
▶ 0:13:32All this is to say that nobody, aside from the Republican leadership, will actually know exactly what is in this bill until you vote for it. It could be entirely different from what we know now. And we won't even really have a chance to look at it or understand its impacts until we have to vote on it. That doesn't make any sense. But like Trump told you guys, close your eyes and vote for it. Pretend it won't do what we all know it's going to do. And that's how you govern around here now. And guess what?
▶ 0:14:01If you do close your eyes and vote for it, I can guarantee it's going to come back and haunt you. People aren't stupid and they're going to know that you betrayed them when they see what your bill does to their families and to their communities. you know, no matter how you what you think about this budget reconciliation bill, the idea again that the rules committee is going to begin um at 1:00 in the morning.
▶ 0:14:30I I I don't think I've ever seen or heard anything like that before. I I get it if hearings went late and you had to do a markup and the vote wasn't until late in the night, but at least you started the debate when people could still pay attention. This is no way to govern, Madam Chair, and you know that and we know that. But nevertheless, here we are. So, let's get through today. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and to those on this committee.
▶ 0:14:54I look forward to seeing you back here at 1:00 in the morning on Wednesday as Republicans look to strip basic needs from moms and dads, kids, and seniors so they can give you even more to the big donors that write their campaign checks. With that, I yield Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statements that our witnesses have may be included in the record.
▶ 0:15:20I now welcome our first panel, Representative Flood and Representative Casten from the Committee on Financial Services. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Representative Flood, I welcome your testimony. Thank you, Chairwoman Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the rules committee. Thanks for the opportunity to talk about SJRES 13.
▶ 0:15:46I offer my full support for this resolution of disapproval, which would nullify the office of the controller of the currency's final rule that makes it significantly harder for banks to merge. Mergers and acquisitions are a crucial part of a dynamic financial system, particularly for community and regional banks. These institutions help their communities grow and thrive. Mergers enable banks to expand, reach more customers, diversify services, and reduce costs, all of which benefit American families and small businesses.
▶ 0:16:15In today's environment, where regulatory burdens are growing and technological demands are intensifying, mergers are often the only way smaller banks can stay competitive with larger institutions. Large banks benefit from economies of scale that allow them to absorb the rising compliance and technology costs. But for smaller and midsize banks, think about my home state of Nebraska where we have over 130 community banks, especially in rural areas, mergers are often the only way to stay strong and keep serving customers.
▶ 0:16:45Unfortunately, the OC's final rule takes us in the wrong direction. Instead of simplifying the process, it would make mergers more costly and complicated without without offering any clear benefit. The OC rule says uh the OC says the rule will enhance transparency and public input by clarifying how the agency evaluates merger applications. But in practice, it would only increase uncertainty for banks that want to merge.
▶ 0:17:11For example, the rule would shift the burden of proof onto applicant banks, requiring them to demonstrate that their proposed merger meets approval criteria. That's a major change in regulatory practice, which would lead to unnecessary delays and inject confusion into the merger review process. The rule would also eliminate procedures that allowed for expedited reviews of mergers between smaller, well- capitalized banks. These provisions were important.
▶ 0:17:38They helped community banks merge quickly and efficiently without unnecessary red tape. Taking those options away would make it harder for smaller banks to grow, which ultimately strengthens the position of the largest financial institutions. Less competition in the financial systems means fewer choices and options for both consumers and businesses. This rule wouldn't just create headaches for banks.
▶ 0:18:00It hurts the communities they serve, especially those that depend on small and midsize institutions for affordable access to financial services. Delays and regulatory hurdles pull resources away from lending, innovation, and reinvestment at a cost to everyday Americans. I believe federal banking agencies should work to streamline the bank merger review process to make it easier for healthy, well- capitalized banks to merge. The OC's rule would move us in the wrong direction.
▶ 0:18:29That's why I strongly urge my colleagues to support SJRES 13. By overturning this rule, we can help keep our banking system competitive, innovationdriven, and responsive to the needs of families, small businesses, and communities across America. Thank you, and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Flood. Representative Casten, you're recognized. Chair Fox, Ranking Member McGovern, and members of the committee, thank you for having me. Uh, I appear on behalf of ranking uh member Waters to urge the committee not to advance SJRES 13 to the floor.
▶ 0:18:59Um, and I would I would observe u in response to Mr. Flood's comment, America does not actually have a shortage of big banks. Um, and we don't have any apparent problem with allowing them to merge. What we do have, we've got financial reform experts, consumer groups, members of Congress who've been raising concerns for years that banking regulators have been rubber stamping bank merger applications and have not fully scrutinize those applications to ensure that they require comply with statutory requirements provide benefit to affected constituencies and don't undermine financial stability.
▶ 0:19:29The result has been less competition, more costly products for consumers, more banking deserts across the country as local banks are subsumed into larger regional and national players. Point of fact data here, the last time that bank regulators in America rejected a merger application was more than two decades ago in 2003. During that same period, the number of community banks in the United States has fallen by 46%.
▶ 0:19:55That's 3,600 small banks that are gone since the last time we reviewed a bank merger application. Former President Biden responded to this problem with an executive order encouraging the Department of Justice and banking regulators to update their merger review procedures, which have not been updated 1995. The OC was one of the agencies that updated its procedures through a rule issued after a notice and comment period last year. And I want to highlight just a couple points of that rule that are really important.
▶ 0:20:23First, the rule eliminated a prior requirement that mergers must be automatically approved within 15 days of the end of the comment comment period when a target bank has less than 50% of the assets of the acquiring bank. That's really important to the health of small banks because effectively it means that it is much easier for a small bank to raise capital by selling to a bigger national regional bank than by merging with a local bank.
▶ 0:20:48um the that that rubber stamp has contributed significantly to that rapid decline of those lower community banks. And I pointed out as the St. Louis Fed has noted, community banks are quote unqued to meet the challenges of lending to small businesses as they have deep insight into the local economic conditions of business opportunities. So when we cut community banks, we heard of small businesses in our communities.
▶ 0:21:11I'd also note given the volume of Doge driven layoffs at the OC, any mandated review time coupled with fewer reviewers means there's going to be less regulatory scrutiny. So eliminating this OC rule now will only accelerate the demise of our community banks to the detriment of the small businesses on which our economy depends.
▶ 0:21:31Second, the OC rule brought transparency by including a new policy statement to clarify how the OC would evaluate statutory factors like financial stability, managerial resources, and community needs. Given the broader uncertainties in our economy right now, we should not be removing a rule that is designed to make it easier for businesses to plan with certainty. Third, the rule ensured that mergers resulting in banks with more than $50 billion in total assets would receive more scrutiny potentially by convening public hearings.
▶ 0:22:02It should be in all of our interest to ensure that limited government resources are preferentially and efficiently allocated to the most significant challenges. Finally, and most problematically, this CRA would not rescend anything because President Trump's acting controller of the currency already rescended this rule last week when he issued an interim final rule that took effect on May 15th.
▶ 0:22:23So, as a practical matter, while I disagree with the policy of that decision, if we bring this to the floor, we are making no change in the near- term. We are simply assuming that if the current acting controller of the currency is not infallible and makes a mistake, we can't go back and fix this later. Now, that matters in part because the OC is not the only bank regulator. Depending on who you are as a bank, a merger may be subject to the jurisdiction of the FDI, maybe just subject to the jurisdiction of the Fed.
▶ 0:22:52And so by only weakening one of them, we're creating a regulatory arbitrage opportunity where banks can seek to merge with banks that have a charter where the primary regulator has the weakest review standards. I would point out that that happened in 2008. The weakest banks were trying to get charters from the weakest regulator, the office of thrift supervision, and we had to shut them down in 2008. We should not be repeating past mistakes.
▶ 0:23:16Fred Khan who was the head of the Civil Aviation Administration under Ronald Reagan famously said oversaw the deregulation of that agency. He famously said that the process of deregulation shifts the burden of consumer protection from rate setting to antitrust enforcement and it fails when it abandons the former without implementing the latter. So, we find ourselves in a situation now where the weakening of financial regulators coupled with the recent recision of this OC rule is going to create a wild west where only the biggest and most well-connected survive.
▶ 0:23:47That is not capitalism. That is MadMax our job, I'd suggest our responsibility as the article one branch should be to check those excesses from the article 2 branch, not simply act as a rubber stamp for their actions uh in the way that they would like the OC to be for big bank mergers.
▶ 0:24:06Um, so in conclusion, I'd like to emphasize this committee that our constituents sent us here to make our economy stronger, to make our entrepreneurs more successful, and to prevent financial instability, not just to defund the white collar police until a financial crisis comes that we can try to blame on our predecessors. That vein, I urge members to reject the resolution and look forward to any questions you may have. Thank the gentleman. Uh, now recognize Mr. Roy for any questions that he might have.
▶ 0:24:38No questions. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Now recognize Mr. McGovern for any questions that he might have. Well, thank you very much. Um uh you both are good guys and good members of Congress. Uh but I hope you realize that you're here because they needed filler. Uh and that's why uh HJRES 13 and SJRES 31 are here before the rules committee kind of unexpectedly.
▶ 0:25:03Uh this committee was supposed to convene at noon um to uh deal with the budget reconciliation uh bill which apparently is uh in a state of disarray at this particular moment. Um and as you heard me in my opening statement say that uh they they now intend to um to bring up budget reconciliation to the rules committee at 1:00 a.m. on Wednesday morning. 1 a.m.
▶ 0:25:29Um and um it just seems to me that when we're dealing with big issues like food assistance, like health care, even the future of AI, uh one would like to think that no matter what your opinion is on these things that you'd like to do it in the light of day so that people could actually see what's going on and listen to the debate on on both sides of the issue. but it's going to be brought up at 1:00 am in the morning.
▶ 0:25:57And again, I'm um you know, this is a process committee and one would like to think that we could set an example for other committees by doing process um in a better way, which includes doing major legislation in the light of day. Uh but if you were to expect that from this particular rules committee, you'd be uh deeply deeply disappointed.
▶ 0:26:21So, uh, again, I I don't really have any questions because, um, again, you're filler, uh, and, um, and you're not, uh, what we're supposed to be dealing with right now. Uh, and so, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. Appreciate the gentleman yielding back. Would point out that we're dealing with Senate joint resolutions that have already passed the Senate, so we're in the middle of a lawmaking process. And now recognize Mr. Langworthy for his time of question. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
▶ 0:26:47Representative Flood, uh, strategic decisions on a possible merger between two financial institutions. They don't happen in a vacuum, and they have to be made in a timely manner, often in a matter of days or a few weeks. Is it too much to expect our regulators to rise to the occasion and provide approvals needed in a framework that is in line with the realities of a competitive financial services sector?
▶ 0:27:26quickly uh at the same pace of the financial sector. So, um I don't think it's too much to ask. and by making it even more difficult for small and medium-sized banks to make strategic decisions on mergers. Can you touch once more on the impact that this will have on consumers in their access to credit and innovation uh in innovative financial services? Well, delays in merger activities obviously limit access to credit and services.
▶ 0:27:54Small banks need mergers to stay competitive and offer better options. Without timely decisions, things cut up, red tape, innovation stalls, and ultimately communities, especially rural ones where I live, lose vital banking services. Thank you, Representative Flood. Innovative sectors of our economy should never be forced to sacrifice competitiveness or creativity just to satisfy the shifting preferences of Washington bureaucrats. We need a financial services industry that is both well supervised and globally competitive.
▶ 0:28:24This CRA helps put our regulatory framework back on track after years of the Biden administration's overreach and micromanagement. I look forward to supporting this legislation on the floor and I yield back. Gentleman yields back. I now recognize Miss Scandlin for her time of Thank you. Um I I did want to pick up on something that the ranking member said. You know, we got this notice of this emergency meeting that we have to do at 1:00 am on Wednesday.
▶ 0:28:54We got it sometime in the middle of the night last night. Um, which apparently was spurred by the middle of the night meeting of the budget committee. Uh, yes, I guess it was 10 p.m. But so this is going to be the second middle of the night meeting undercover of darkness for this big bad BS reconciliation bill um that we're supposed to be considering. and nobody seems to know what's in it. Um, the notice says that it's an emergency meeting.
▶ 0:29:22I've been trying to figure out what the emergency is other than the fact that the bill's so bad, nobody wants it to see the light of day. Um, so just wondering if you can clue us in on what the emergency is or when we might see what we're actually going to be considering at 1:00 a.m. on Wednesday. I would say to the general lady negotiations are still continuing on tweaking the bills that have all gone through their respective committees of jurisdiction.
▶ 0:29:50So 99% of what we will have in front of us is already known. There is that little element there. And then when you get into all the different time requirements that we have in our rules, if we uh wish to go home uh at a reasonable time, we have to for the Memorial Day weekend, we must move forward with the time scales that we are given.
▶ 0:30:13And that means I mean unless my colleagues in the minority want to restrict their time, which I'm I'm not asking you to do. I'm just saying knowing how much time you all will want to spend talking about this, I suspect it'll be much like what happened in energy and commerce where we went for 26 and a half hours and and what ended up happening was is that at least one of the speakers uh on the minority side said something about here we are in the middle of the night and we we'd already made it to 3 p.m.
▶ 0:30:41There will be plenty of time for the American people to see the debate both on the rule on the underlying uh bill both in this committee in the committees that have already met and on the floor. Okay. Well, I think it's a little less of tweaking the bill than tweeting about the bill because we're certainly learning more about the bill from Mr. Royy's Twitter account than we are from any official processes. But I think uh Mr. McGovern, I was going to yield to him for a minute. Let's be clear. This is an artificial deadline.
▶ 0:31:10this is the deadline that you guys have kind of decided to put into place on your own. There's no no magic uh date that this I this hasn't have to be done by Friday. You can do you can get back and do this in the light of day when you get back and do hearings in in in um in the light of day. I'd also say to you that yeah, the energy and commerce committee went on and on and on and they everybody got hurt. In the agriculture committee, the chairman cut us off.
▶ 0:31:38I mean, stopped debate and stopped uh us from offering amendments at a certain period of time. Um and so, um so, so yeah, I'm I'm glad you're acknowledging that the rules committee uh will uh have a will have a robust debate. I hope we don't get cut off because it will be long. It'll be long, but I yield back. Okay. Thank you. I guess we should discuss a little bit of of the substitute the the fodder that has been tossed at us here for for this week.
▶ 0:32:08Um, and this is the joint resolution to remove regulations regarding banking mergers and I am concerned about that because it does seem to tie the hands of bank regulators to do anything to meaningfully oversee the size and power of the nation's largest banks. I know that some of this discussion was about smaller banks, but we don't need to look that far back to see some examples.
▶ 0:32:31Just two years ago, Silicon Valley Bank failed largely because uh our Republican colleagues had rolled back crucial regulations that would have exposed early warning signs that the bank was in trouble. So, it doesn't seem like we have to look too far to see that deregulation in this area can be dangerous. It leads to banks being less accountable.
▶ 0:32:53uh more predatory and we've already got issues with the fact that to the extent that the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau was overseeing these types of um overseeing student loan loan servicesers, big banks, CD payday um that the prosecutions or the um investigations into those uh groups have been dropped by this administration.
▶ 0:33:20uh coincidentally just after many of them made multi-million dollar contributions to the president's inaugural fund. So, you know, we're really concerned about the fox being in the hen house and all. Can can you talk about this a little bit, Mr. Casten? What what can we expect if we're to go ahead and and roll back this regulation? Uh, sure. Thank you for the question. Um, and if you want an extra hour to debate the bill, um, we not bring this to the floor and save some floor time.
▶ 0:33:47Um the I'd make the observation when we were debating our rules package for financial services at the start of the year, I made the observation to Chairman Hill that in my six years on the financial service committee, we have always been extremely bipartisan in the wake of a financial crisis and extremely partisan when we try to avoid one. Um and there's look, there's a healthy tension between, you know, we want to make sure that banks have access to capital and can grow.
▶ 0:34:13And if we were sitting here in a moment where banks were struggling to merge or where we saw more and more smaller banks that couldn't reach capital, this would be a good conversation to have. What we've what we've seen is the opposite. The big banks get bigger and bigger. They get they get bigger sometimes because um when we have a crisis, inevitably the regulators say, "I need the bank with the biggest balance sheet to buy the bank that's shrinking." You mentioned Silicon Valley Bank.
▶ 0:34:41The FDIC bailed them out with taxpayer dollars and then those assets and with signature were absorbed by bigger banks and we antitrust concerns at that point because we didn't want to destabilize the banking sector. We didn't then ask them to disorgge of those assets. Right? And what we have right now in this OC rule that's being repealed is is a we would go back to the old days that says, okay, you're a small bank who wants to grow. You know your local communities. you know the car dealership in your community. You know the local manufacturer.
▶ 0:35:11You know that even though maybe they don't have a you know a bond, a corporate bond that you can rate against. You play little league. You coach little league with the owner's son and and you know and you know the family. You go to church with them. You know who those people are. You know they're good people who can be trusted. Well, if that bank can't merge with the bank next door, but they can merge with City Bank because now all of a sudden it's expedited approval, then you've lost all that local fabric. And that's what we've seen in our communities.
▶ 0:35:39So it's not it's not just the concentration of big banks, which it's not just the concentration of risk in big banks that we then have to bail out, but it's the loss of the social fabric of our communities. And I you know, I think Mr. Flood and I both agree that there's a lot fewer small banks than there were before. It's not because those banks shut down. It's not because those people lost somebody to get credit. It's because those banks got gobbled up by bigger banks who then shut down the branches.
▶ 0:36:05That's what the OC rule was trying to fix and was making progress in fixing. And to roll this back, as I said a moment ago, it's not it's not capitalism. It's just mad max anarchy that get big, get big quick, and then you can do whatever you want. Well, I think we're seeing the impact of concentration in a number of of sectors, whether it's healthcare or this, food products, whatever. Um, so I appreciate your perspective and and close look at that. Thank you. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back.
▶ 0:36:33Now recognize Gentleman George, Mr. Scott, time for questions. I uh I don't I don't really have any questions. I will say this, you know, the way they stepped in and protected the people in Silicon Valley Bank for those of us from rural America. Um the Biden administration would have never protected, you know, farmers and small merchants and all the way they did Silicon Valley.
▶ 0:37:02is pretty pretty disturbing to see the double standard and when it's uh Silicon Valley and your donors how you know they protected them but they wouldn't do anything for Main Street America. With that I'll I'll yield. Thank you uh Mr. Chairman. Thank you Mr. Flood and Mr. Casten for your testimony.
▶ 0:37:30uh and uh I will echo the sentiments that were expressed by the ranking member with respect to the bill that we'll be debating on Wednesday uh in the dead of night and the majority's regrettable choice to take up that bill uh literally I guess at 1:00 a.m. But we'll have more to say on that in the days ahead. Uh Mr. Flood, it's good to see you and we've got a great partnership uh and I I very much enjoy uh our friendship and partnership on a number of different bills.
▶ 0:37:58So it pains me to to ask you here uh some u some perhaps point more pointed questions on this particular resolution. Uh but but uh proceed I must. I'm trying to understand I I understand the rationale for the Republicans proposing to disapprove of this rule and to seek its repeal. I disagree with the rationale but I understand it.
▶ 0:38:23This disapproval resolution would essentially if codified, right, if if this resolution is approved and signed by the president, it would repeal a 2024 Biden era rule. Is that Yes. Okay. And that Biden era 2024 was repealed by the OC last week.
▶ 0:38:54Yes. Right. Yes. Okay. So, what rule are you all trying to repeal? Well, while the OC has rescended the rule, passing SJRES 13 remains crucial. It ensures that a similar rule cannot be reissued by the OC or future administrations without congressional approval. Got it.
▶ 0:39:16So you're So basically the idea is we don't like this rule that President Biden's or that this regulatory entity under President Biden implemented. The Trump administration has now eliminated that rule, but Congress is going to pass a resolution to disapprove of that rule anyway so that decades into the future, this agency can never issue a rule anything like it without
▶ 0:39:46Congress saying so first. I think it's important that we exercise our Article One authority to tell these agencies what we expect. The regulatory whiplash that we've seen regardless of who the president is since 2016 is difficult for uh businesses, banks, and others to predict what the rules are today. This was a change to something that had worked just fine.
▶ 0:40:10These mergers weren't banks like Silicon Valley Bank, and City Bank is not dropping into middle of Central Illinois and buying Springfield First National Bank. The reality is the reason we have so many banks consolidating quite frankly is that the compliance burden since DoddFrank is suffocating Main Street banks.
▶ 0:40:34That's the reason that they are fleeing these federal charters and in droves going into state charters because the OCC's heavy hand has been difficult to deal with. And here not to intervene with Mr. Mr. blood because again as I said I understand your rationale so I'm not well then you should vote for I have a different view what I have a different view on the rationale but I understand why you take the position you do I'm just simply suggesting it's a question of prioritization of the majority's time
▶ 0:41:04right the limited floor time that Republicans are utilizing during the course of the 119th Congress to me would suggest that we ought to debating policies that are of great import to the people that we serve.
▶ 0:41:22Are you aware of any disapproval resolution being passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by the president of the United States after the rule that is the subject of that resolution having already been eliminated?
▶ 0:41:38I'm a right person to ask because I did sponsor legislation uh to repeal Saab 121 which staff accounting bulletin 121 and I also had a hand in uh passing the CRA uh large participant rule which the Senate and then the house I think just authorized. I was the House sponsor of that and I believe it was signed by the president before he went to the Middle East. So uh I have been engaged in several CRAAS. I think more than anything Congress needs to weigh Mr.
▶ 0:42:08Flood, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on. Okay, now I've got to I've got to correct. You're saying both of those examples are examples in which the rules the larger participant rule was passed. The Saab 121 I don't think was What do you mean by passed? Was approved by both the House and the Senate. No, no, no. Okay. Yeah, I think I'm maybe I'm not articulating this well. Okay. The federal agency in this case, the office of the controller of the currency has abolished this rule.
▶ 0:42:35They issued a rule on May 8th that rescends the 2024 Biden era rule. Right. Right. We're on the same page there. Okay. Is there another example that you know in which the House and the Senate have passed a disapproval resolution that's then signed by the president of the United States to repeal a rule that his administration has already repealed? Well, I've been in Congress for three years and I can't recall one. I've been in Congress for six years.
▶ 0:43:05I can't recall one either, Mr. Flood. That's kind of the point. Let me finish. Let me share. Let me let me finish. I'll give you a chance to respond. That that's kind of my point is that, you know, the administration in this case, you know, they agree with you. Republicans made the case that the office of the comproller of the currency should eliminate this rule. They've issued an interim final rule that resends this rule that everyone on your side of the aisle seems to, you know, believe is problematic. I get it. that they the the Trump administration heard you.
▶ 0:43:34They repealed the rule. I disagree with their decision, but they proceeded. My issue is that we're now spending yet another week considering yet another CRA disapproval resolution for a rule that's already been repealed. And I just I you and I have a lot of bills together, good bills. These are bills that would foster small business growth and innovation.
▶ 0:43:59And I know you're not you don't make the decisions as to what you know bills or resolutions come before the rules committee or are considered by the uh by the majority on the house floor. That's a speaker's decision. That's uh the chairs of the relevant committees. I'm just suggesting perhaps to them in abstentia that there might be a better use of all of our time, Mr. Chairman, considering disapproval resolutions for rules that don't exist anymore. Like that might be I to me maybe I'll give the chairman an opportunity to weigh in here.
▶ 0:44:28I don't know if he if he wants to weigh in. Is uh no one engage? I mean, how about my colleague from New York if he wants to don't want to be heard? Okay. Well, I I mean, I just to me, Mr. Casten, I I it's maybe you can enlighten me a little bit of why the majority has dis like there are a lot here better way to frame this.
▶ 0:44:51There are a lot of rules that I believe Republicans and my colleagues respectfully disagree with, right? Rules that were promagated by the Biden administration. It's unclear to me why they are spending time on a disapproval resolution on the one rule that the Trump administration seems to have already eliminated. Can you help me out, Representative Cast? Well, Mr.
▶ 0:45:15to goose is you know we've spent a lot of important time this session you know repealing refrigerator standards and dishwashers all sorts of important things I don't have a good answer to that process question I think that's a question to take up with leadership I I I would just come back to the larger point of this rule though the there is a tendency I think look we're all US legislators we all look at the world through a US lens sometimes we don't look beyond our borders because we we hear from people who talk to us about what the issues are
▶ 0:45:45and the challenges and and we all want America to be better but it's useful to leave our shores sometimes myself uh chairman bar we were on a bipartisan code to European financial capitals week before the last election to a person every European financial regulator we met was jealous of the US financial system the we had them telling us the Basil Accords that we debate at length in our committee about how Basel was hurting US banks All these European banks
▶ 0:46:15were saying Basil is too good for eur for US banks. That's really hurting the banks over here. We met with uh um people at the the the European Central Bank who were observing that in the United States 70% of the capital in US markets comes from equity and 30% comes from debt. In European markets, 70% comes from debt and 30% comes from equity. They don't have a culture of risk-taking because they don't have capital markets that are deep enough to provide that risk.
▶ 0:46:44They were jealous of what we have created over here. I share all that history because in the three weeks, four weeks since liberation day, we saw equity markets in the United States go down and we saw people run out of treasuries. We have those European asset managers who are now telling us, I need to reduce my exposure to the US economy because I do not trust the United States will be true to its word.
▶ 0:47:12If you make a trade agreement with a foreign government, you change that trade agreement just because a president comes in. If I'm going to make an investment in the United States, I want to know that the time it takes me to deploy that capital to secure those contracts will be held up in a court of law. And I don't know if the rule of law still applies in the United States. the I had but that the chairman's been indulged with. Okay. Well, I'll just close by.
▶ 0:47:34I had a major asset manager who told me um that Mario Draghi who said that Europe needs deeper capital markets but they can't get there because of the structural reforms is getting everything he wants as American capital runs to Europe right now without making any of the structural reforms they could make. Repealing this rule, doing what we're doing, to use a European word, is an own goal. We don't have to be kicking the ball in our net, but we are kicking the ball in our net right now. Yeah, I I certainly agree with you, Mr.
▶ 0:48:03Casten, on the merits. Uh, and I'm I appreciate your ability to articulate well the reasons why this resolution is shortsighted in my view and repealing of the rule is shortsighted and and your defense of the propriety of the rule.
▶ 0:48:18Um I will belabor the the initial point that I was uh attempting to to convey which is simply that we this committee has transitioned from debating you know CRA joint disapproval resolutions and that being the bulk of this of the rule committee's uh work and portfolio in a way that is unlike certainly any past Congress that I've served in.
▶ 0:48:44And now we've transitioned to doing that for rules that have already been repealed by the administration. I'm not really sure what the next step is. But I mean, apparently the the the new norm now is we'll just do joint disapproval of resolutions for rules that you know were were repealed long ago. But just so that the public knows that that Congress really doesn't like this rule, we'll we'll proceed anyway. I I uh will yield back. I appreciate Mr. Flood and Mr. Cast in the thoughtful debate. I yield back the balance. Gentleman yields back.
▶ 0:49:13I now recognize myself from my time of questioning. And let me start off talking about CRAAS. CRAAS are really limited in their time scope because you have to act within a certain period of time after the rule has been published in the Registry.
▶ 0:49:30for folks back home and for the public to understand that means every time there's an administration change and when the administration changes from one party to another and the party that now controls the White House controls the House and the Senate, you're going to see a lot of CRAAS. That's the nature of the beast. Which is why for those of you who only served three and six years, you may not have seen some of these things before.
▶ 0:49:55And I can't speak to whether or not there's been one on a rule that was repealed by an administration, but it's important because this tool was created, although I think it's weak. I don't know why we need the president to sign it anyway. That's kind of defeats the purpose, which is why you don't get many of these during the the course of most congressional terms is because you have to have the party of the House, the Senate, and the White House all lined up to really have any effect.
▶ 0:50:20Because otherwise the president, if he passes a resolution and his party is still in control, whether it's that president or president, that they're not going to sign a bill that negates the policy that they put into place with their agencies.
▶ 0:50:36So CRAAS are extremely important which is why we spend time on CRAAS at the beginning of a new period where you have unified House Senate even if it's small in the House Senate and the presidency and it's important in another way and this is one that that always bothers me because I I'm a legislator by nature and I believe that the legislature at the federal level the United States Congress and the Senate combined have given away too much power to the executive branch no matter who is the president of the
▶ 0:51:06United States at the time, whether it be a Democrat or a Republican. The CRA is one way, as this CRA points out, it's one way for Congress to take back its power. It says, "In this area, we gave authority to the administration. We gave it to their agency. They came up with a rule we didn't like. We want to make sure it doesn't happen again unless unless Congress passes an act." That's exactly what I want. I want it to be where Congress has to pass an act and so that we can move forward.
▶ 0:51:36And for those on of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who may question this, while I have been alone out there, I have had a bill since uh 2016, I believe, to take the United States Trade Representatives office and transplant it from the lawn of the White House back to Congress where I believe it belongs. CRAAS are smaller measures.
▶ 0:52:01I believe I'm the only person that likes that bill, but I have proposed it because I believe that under the Constitution, we're supposed to have control of trade between the foreign countries and our own. I just lay that out there. This is not something new for me. I believe that CRAAS are another way that Congress can take back little teeny pieces of power where we felt like the agencies could handle it.
▶ 0:52:26and we may agree or disagree on that on various things, but the agencies didn't do what Congress wanted and we're going to take a little bit of that power back and keep it with Congress. Thus, it makes perfect perfectly reasonable sense to me and I think you would agree with me, Mr. Flood, that to make sure that that we don't have a rule that changes every four years. You want to make sure that if that rule is going to change, it's something that is debated and thought out in Congress. And the way to do that is to pass this uh CRA SJR res 13.
▶ 0:52:56Am I not correct on that? I totally agree. And you know, one of the issues that I think about is waters of the United States. Under President Biden, he wanted to regulate every puddle in Nebraska. Under President Trump, we should have done a CRA because it came back under the Biden administration. And this puts a stake in its heart. This says no, this is the sense of Congress and we don't agree and we don't agree. And we're in in essence we're taking that power back for the legislative branch where it is supposed to be.
▶ 0:53:22Uh and I understand that you know you can make the argument that we can't make every regulatory decision out there which is why we give the agencies the power but where we don't agree we should have that power to say no and that if you want to do that in the future bring it back to Congress and have a full debate of the then sitting representatives in the United States Congress and the United States Senate. Is that correct? Well said, Mr. Chairman. All right. Would the gentleman yield? Uh, I will yield. I I love this debate. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
▶ 0:53:52Uh, one, just with respect to the contours of the CRA, my understanding is under the statute, the agency can't issue a rule that is substantially in the same form. That's correct. It's not agency can't, Congress can. No, I know. But my point is it doesn't preclude the agency from issuing a rule in that field or area of law in that particular little area in that form. is a rule without Congress saying, "Okay." Exactly. So, the OC in this instance wouldn't be able to issue the same rule that it did.
▶ 0:54:19But this does nothing to prevent the OC under a future administration from issuing a rule that would It just can't look like this one. Precisely. I just want All right. That's fair. That's a fair clarification. And I appreciate the gentleman uh making sure that because a lot of what we do is people who have insomnia except for Wednesday, wake up in the middle of the night and watch the reruns. On Wednesday, they can watch Live Time. Uh that said, uh I do have a question uh for you, uh Mr.
▶ 0:54:45Casten, and it's very nice of you to be here, and I'm not sure we've ever had a conversation before, but it's it's it's long overdue, and I'm glad we're having it. Privilege is mine. From some of your testimony, I gather that your one of your concerns is that maybe our antirust laws are out of whack or the Federal Trade Commission is not applying them correctly. Is that is that part of what I heard in your in some of your concern? Not your main thrust, but at least one of your side concerns.
▶ 0:55:07Well, so I I think we should all be concerned that there hasn't been a major antitrust case of any form in the United States in in 40 years. Practically speaking, I think specific to banks, there is a tension that we have banking regulators who are tasked to oversee this the soundness of the financial system and then separately we have the Department of Justice and the FTC who are responsible for antitrust enforcement.
▶ 0:55:34And too often those two bodies don't communicate with each other. And particularly when we hit financial crisis, we tend to ignore the antirust concerns because we because only the big bank can buy them out. And so the result is we have this one-way bet where there is whenever a crisis comes, you can arbitrage and make small banks into bigger banks by gobbling them up. We never discourage on the backside. And I think that's been a historic fa failure of antitrust enforcement, although that's beyond the scope of this particular CRA.
▶ 0:56:03and and while financial institution and the laws surrounding that and antirust might be a little bit outside of my wheelhouse, I have similar concerns in the healthcare arena where I serve on energy and commerce and we see similar uh consolidation of health care and uh I have concerns there too.
▶ 0:56:21So maybe at some point we can discuss with our judiciary friends what we might ought to be looking at to see if we can't have a little more uh a little more activity on the antitrust side. I' I've long maintained, Mr. Griffith, that it's very easy to survive as a member of Congress if you're pro business. It's very easy to survive if you're anti- business. It's very hard to survive if you're pro competition because nobody likes you. I I appreciate that. Mr.
▶ 0:56:49Flood, is there anything that you else that you would like to say before I I yield back? And then we do have another questioner for you on both sides. No, I appreciate the discussion. I yield back. All right, gentlemen yields back. I yel back. I now recognize Miss Leger Fernandez for her time of questioning. Thank you. Yeah. But he loves his colloquian. We just love that, don't we, Mr. Chairman?
▶ 0:57:15Uh I am going to yield uh some initial time to our ranking member, Mr. Governor. I just want to make two observations, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I appreciate you saying that it's important for us to not seed Congress's constitutional authority to any administration. Um, and you know, and I and I hope uh that that means that you will be more outspoken and Republicans will be more outspoken about uh what Doge and Elon Musk are doing.
▶ 0:57:45Uh that uh this this overreach uh which I don't think they have the legal authority to do of shutting down agencies, of of of mass firings, of of eliminating programs that Congress authorized and appropriated. Um, I haven't heard a peep from my Republican friends on that.
▶ 0:58:06Um, and I I can tell you right now that uh when a Democrat gets back in the White House, uh, and if she or he were to act in such a manner, uh, you guys would all be screaming bloody murder right now. Um, so I hope that when we talk about protecting our authorities here that uh it's not just with regard to an individual CRA that we look at the whole picture.
▶ 0:58:35And then the the second thing I'm just as an observation. Um I mean you guys are in charge. You called this hearing. Um you know we have witnesses here to testify. Um, and we we we up until just now, there's like there's two Republicans here now, three Republicans out of nine. And I would just respectfully suggest that when you call a hearing, uh, you ought to show up.
▶ 0:59:04And, um, and again, I hope that this is not what we're going to see at one:00 in the morning. Uh, I was on the agriculture committee during the markup. virtually every Republican left the room for no engaging in almost no debate, offering no amendments, offering nothing. Um, and then they came back again when it was time to um to vote. Uh, but I I really do think when you do hearings, people ought to show up. And I thank the gentle lady for yielding. I yield back. Thank you.
▶ 0:59:34You know, I really do appreciate that when you answered the question about why we need to do this, you did say that you think that Congress has to take back its article one authority. Is did I remember did we all remember that correctly, Mr. Fled? So, you think that Congress should take back its article one authority? So, are you willing to suggest to agree that Congress should look at the tariffs because that is an article one authority?
▶ 1:00:05It's a yes no question. I've been here for three years. Um, I've seen the pain that the lack of effort on trade policy has created in America, especially for our farmers. And I'm ready for some immediate relief. I want to see us selling beef in all over the world. I want to see us selling our soybeans. I want to see us selling our want. Do you believe if that's what you believe, don't you think that Congress should exercise its its constitutional article one authority over tariffs?
▶ 1:00:37It's something I would have to study. I've been a legislator now for 13 years. I wouldn't chose the only branch because the best branch to be in. Wouldn't it be that the only way we could study it is if Congress said we are going to take over our article one constitutional authority? Before I would want that, I'd want to find out what its impact would be on our trading relationship. So, let me just clarify.
▶ 1:00:59You are willing to stand up for the banks to say con Congress should exercise this constitutional authority but not stand up for and I will say there are a lot of farmers, there are cotton farmers uh in my district, there are dairy farmers, there are all kinds of farmers who are really being hurt by the tariffs. There are a lot of people who are really being hurt by the Paris.
▶ 1:01:26There are Christmas trees that will not have presents under them because of the tariffs. But you're willing to stand up for the banks but not the consumers or the farmers. You asked me about trade. I'm standing up for the farmers because under President Trump's first term, what he did with trade open markets in Canada, Mexico, and China. I've seen it work once. I'll see it work again. Right. under terrorist first term. The farmers were hurt so bad he had to bail them out because the tariffs were so bad.
▶ 1:01:55President Biden did not cut one trade deal. The first president since Jimmy Carter to not even touch trade in four years. Okay. So the other thing is that they we are there was a lot of pain but the pain that we are experiencing from this trade war and then he caved to Chinese. I want to think about another area and uh Mr.
▶ 1:02:18Casten, perhaps you have some thoughts on another area of article authority was we just there was an attack on the CRS and our copyright office. How do you think that fits with article one authority? Um I appreciate you asking the question and man I wish this was bipartisan. We have you know Mr.
▶ 1:02:42Griffith, one of the conversations that maybe we can continue on the floor, the entire legislative branch appropriation is about.12% of the federal budget. That's smaller than the entire judicial branch appropriation. Um, and obviously the balance is executive branch. In the legislative branch is the Library of Congress, copyright office at CRS.
▶ 1:03:06And I don't know how anybody who is proud of the the place they work, this article one branch, sits quietly when the article 2 branch is encroaching. I mean, can you I I'm trying to imagine a scenario where we would put a committee over and run over to the White House and say, "We're taking over the EPA, right? That that would be the analog. They the White House would be screaming holy or or or for that matter like the Supreme Court is really good at taking authority from us, right? Right.
▶ 1:03:35I mean, that was the Loperbrite decision. When are we as the legislative branch truly going to push back? And if we're not going to push back when they're going into CRS, when they're trying to get in the office of workplace rights in the Congress, this is this is it's personal for all of us, right? What protections do we have? Why are we not fighting for that on a bipartisan basis? So, I think I think Mr. Flood and I are in total agreement that the legislative branch should be pushing back.
▶ 1:04:03But my god, not only when not only when the president is in your party, right? And and I really do uh chairman Griffith appreciate your comments that you think that there is too much power uh for the executive branch. I would know that every time I do bring my amendment so that Congress could consider the article one authority, you vote no. But hopefully one of these days uh we will join together and say that the constitution means something.
▶ 1:04:33We were sent here by our constituents to exercise our article one authority and power. And boy, we need to have the courage to do so. Uh instead, what we seem to be looking forward to is a uh meeting that starts at 100 a.m. I think I'm going to call it the zombie committee meeting, right? we, you know, or the uh shall we call it the zombies? Should we call it, you know, the vampires? We cannot see the light of day.
▶ 1:05:03So, we are afraid of the light of day. And we're going to start a we're going to start a committee meeting at 100 a.m. in order to consider that big bad billionaire bill that they are bringing before us. They don't want it to see the light of day. But I am very appreciative that you're going to let us ask as many questions as we need to because Americans don't really know everything that's in I don't know how long it's going to be. Uh Mr.
▶ 1:05:32Chairman, do you know if it's going to be over a thousand pages? Do we even have a sense of how big it's going to be? I would say that there is a committee print that is out there. The tweaks to that that are being negotiated are probably not going to be extensive and it depends on uh what in what format you read it in as to how many pages it is but it is it is not as many pages as I would have feared. I like the bigger print.
▶ 1:06:00Uh so you can go from small print 400 pages or bigger print somewhere near a thousand. Well you know the idea depends on which one you like big or small. Well, you actually have good eyesight close up, but it's really a question of what the American people have. And and the reality is that uh when you say some tweaks, we have no idea what that means because we have not seen them uh and we don't know what they are and so we cannot talk to them.
▶ 1:06:29And in fact, I read in, you know, one uh article that many uh had no idea what was in that bill. Uh and yet they were voting for it because they were lock step and voting for it. So our job will be indeed to bring out uh what's in that bill. Now uh getting back uh I don't know if there's anything else, Mr. Casten, that you want to add. I am the last Democrat that gets to ask questions.
▶ 1:07:00I I do appreciate your comment with regards to uh community banks and and and and local banking uh and then the importance of that. Um, and it it seems to me that there is similar between what we're doing now and what we will be doing in uh our middle of the night uh meeting or vampire meeting is that um this seems to be a
▶ 1:07:30preference for the bigger corporation, the bigger bank, the bigger bigger bigger over the consumer. We have seen that a law and I don't recall that we've had any actual bill come out of financial services. That's a bill that's addressing and protecting uh consumers. Am am I remembering that correctly? I don't remember that. We've been before rules on a bill, not a CRA. Uh you're going to test my memory and I don't recall.
▶ 1:08:00I would certainly hope we could protect the consumer uh financial protection bureau which is looking out for consumers. That's actually the opposite, right? That that Republicans seem to always stand where they always want to get rid of regulation. And when they say that, what they're actually saying is we're not going to protect consumers. We are not going to protect workers. We are not going to protect the health and safety of our community. And so we need to say that is what they say.
▶ 1:08:29They say get rid of regulation, but it really means do not protect the American people. Um, if there is nothing else, I guess if if you'll humor me the time, I did I would just like to respond to Mr. Scott's point about SVB because I I think Mr. Nagus's point about why we're taking away the right to ever legislate this is I think we ought to be really careful. recall when Hank Pollson was the Treasury Secretary and the financial crisis was melting down.
▶ 1:08:58Hank Pollson used to be a constituent of mine before redistricting. Um, but I think he said this in many public forums. He said, "I either need to have a bazooka in my pocket or people need to think I have a bazooka in my pocket because otherwise the world's melting down." You've got your 1 a.m. hearing, my recollection, and I forget if you were on the committee when SVB went down, Mr. flood. But you remember us sitting there with those long really stressful calls with all the regulators saying we've seen $40 billion run out of SVB. We don't know where it went.
▶ 1:09:28We don't know if there's contagion in other parts of the system. We need to have all the regulators to figure out how do we shore things up. How do we make sure forget about protection of the banks because we let SVB and this is what I wanted to correct on what Mr. Scott said. We we we let SVB go bankrupt. We did not protect the investors in SVB, but we did protect all the depositors and that was because the regulators had those tools.
▶ 1:09:52If we are taking away the OC's ability to use a tool, we can't predict when they might need that authority, right? And and I realize I'm conflicting myself a little bit with article one powers, but when bank crises start, you don't have time for three weeks of hearings, right? You need to have good people there in those positions. And I I do have real concerns if we permanently take authorities away from our financial regulators that we are we are complicit in what may follow.
▶ 1:10:23And as I recall the uh that bank failure, that great recession was when there was a Republican in office, right? Uh well the SVB was of the SVB but the last the last was was under a Republican president which is why we need to be concerned. I seem to recall Obama saying he had an inbox from hell and wouldn't we all be jealous to have that in right now. Thank you very much. I yield back. Gentle lady yields back.
▶ 1:10:50Now recognize the gentleman from South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I yield chairman as much time as you need. Thank you. I just want to make a couple quick points. Um on Doge, I would say to everybody that part of the problem there and some of the frustration that people have is is over the time both Democrats and Republicans have given so much power to the executive branch and it's always that language you see in the bills and you we see it all the time and you can't far it out every time
▶ 1:11:20where it says as the te as the secretary may determine or you know any language that gives power to the secretary, you're giving that power to the president. So, as far as, you know, how many workers are needed to accomplish a certain purpose, how how many folks are needed, whether or not a particular program is necessary, you're going to find in a lot of cases, and I haven't examined everyone that that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may have a complaint about, but I suspect you're going to find in most of those areas, we have left so much power to the executive
▶ 1:11:50branch that they do have the authority to do it. the courts will sort that out. But make no mistake about it, if we don't want that happening, it's incumbent upon us as Republicans and Democrats, both sides of the aisle, working to bring back power to the Congress. And we saw that last year when the uh architect or maybe it was the year before, the architect of the capital was brought back in under the with a bill that was a bipartisan bill was brought back into the legislative uh fold and taken out of the executive branch control.
▶ 1:12:18The architect of the capital was actually picked by the president previously. That shouldn't happen. We have lots of other agencies like that. There's some bills floating out there. I expect to be on one sometime in the next 10 days uh that will bring back some more legislative area agencies into congressional authority that we have seated in my opinion wrongly to the executive branch.
▶ 1:12:40That's a big part of the frustration that people have is it's easy to say, "Let's give the power to the administration when everything's running smoothly and when there is a conflict, we want to say, "Oh, oh, they're doing it wrong." Well, we gave them the power. We don't want them having the power. We got to take it back. I yield back to the gentleman from South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank both of you for for coming. I have no further questions. Thank you. Gentleman yields back now. Recognizes gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Jack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Flood.
▶ 1:13:07Just to get back to the legislation at hand, one question I have is the the impact on small and medium-sized banks in our communities as it relates to the drawn out review process. Could you speak to the strain that some of these small banks, which by the way are are facing uh you know a makeorb breakak survival mode as they're undergoing these open-ended review processes. Can you speak to the strain imposed on those B banks by this regulation? Thank you for the question, Mr. Jack.
▶ 1:13:37I would say lengthy, uncertain reviews are incredibly costly. Banks have to keep teams tied up for months, sometimes years, waiting on decisions, and that diverts resources from day-to-day operations, customer services, and you know, business leaders want certainty. And uncertainty is one of the worst things for planning. If you're trying to expand, serve more communities, or offer better products, waiting endlessly for a green light from regulators can stall or kill those plans.
▶ 1:14:03and the OCC's rule would have made this process worse, not better. Thank you very much and thank you both uh for your testimony today and I yield back to our chairman. And gentleman yields back. That concludes our uh questions for the witnesses today. Thank you all so very much. It's been a lively debate and I look forward to seeing you all on the floor on this issue and others. And we will take uh what minute, two minutes, just a minute. Just a minute so we can switch folks. So, give us a minute to switch witnesses out and we'll go on to the next one.
▶ 1:15:34I now welcome our second panel, Chairman Guthrie and Representative Ton Tonko from the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask that you summarize your statement in five minutes. Chairman Guthrie, I welcome your testimony. You're now recognized for your five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Mr.
▶ 1:15:50Chair, and I appre appreciate you and ranking member McGovern and the members of the rules committee for the opportunity to testify before you today in the Biden administration and the Obama administration and Clinton administrations before that imposed regulation after regulation on American businesses and making it more difficult and expensive to produce the energy products and jobs we need to keep America strong. The first Trump administration took many important steps to roll back burdensome regulations to unleash the American economy.
▶ 1:16:19The Biden administration tried undoing the good work of the first Trump administration in the name of stopping climate change, supporting divisive DIA policies. And through last November, the American people spoke out strongly against these policies in favor of returning America where innovation thrives. One of the unnecessary and costly rules the Biden administration issued known as the once-in always in rule is the subject of the Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval that's before the committee today.
▶ 1:16:48I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before you in support of SJRES 31 which passed the Senate earlier this month. This CRA is a companion to HJRES79 which was introduced by Rep. Ferd Orchek and co-sponsored by Res Balderson and Allen, all members of the Energy and Commerce Committee. The resolution would overturn a rule issued by the Biden administration on September 10th, 2024 under the Clean Air Act that penalizes businesses for making investments to reduce their emissions.
▶ 1:17:18Under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, regulated sources that emit more than 10 tons per year of one hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons of a combination of HAPS air hazardous air pollutant is called a HAP are designated as major sources and therefore subject to strict compliance requirements and big brother-ike continuous monitoring directives.
▶ 1:17:39Entities that that admit less than this threshold are designated as area sources and are subject to more flexible and often less cost costly requirements because they pollute less than major sources. Under the once in always in rule which is based on a policy first issued by EPA during the Clinton administration.
▶ 1:17:57A regulated entity that is classified a major source cannot later reclassify as an area source even after they have taken steps to reduce their emissions below the major source threshold through the installation of p pollution control equipment or operational limits. In other words, the regulation is a one-way street which creates a disincentive for businesses to take steps to reduce their emissions. Think about that. This is a regulation designed to reduce emissions.
▶ 1:18:26Yet, in practice, the opposite effect. Once you're in, you can never leave. This is a wrongheaded approach resulting in punishment for doing the right thing. The Trump administration understood the problem with a once and always in policy.
▶ 1:18:41In 2018, it took steps to undo the Clinton administration policy memo that was followed by a common sense rule in 2020 that interpreted the Clean Air Act in a way that so that a major source could be reclassified as an area source if it reduced admissions below the major source level. Shortly after taking office, the Biden EPA worked to undo the legacy of the first Trump administration, including roll back the 2020 rule, issuing its own rule and reinstating the misguided once in, always in.
▶ 1:19:11So, this rule imposes significant regulatory burdens on businesses with little environmental benefit. Once you're labeled a major source, investment capital gets swallowed up by endless compliance without serving the environment. Instead, we should focus every invested dollar on jobs, growth, and innovation. A win-winwin for the economy. I support this resolution. U my colleagues on the rules committee to do so as well. Thank Gentleman yields back and I recognize Mr.
▶ 1:19:40Tonko for his five minutes uh opening statement. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you to the chair and and ranking member and members of the committee. I'm here to testify on SJR res 31, a resolution that seeks to block EPA's reclassification of major sources as area sources rule. I strongly oppose this resolution and I strongly oppose this absurd Republican effort as a preview to stripping health care from millions of Americans to give giant tax breaks to billionaires.
▶ 1:20:08Congressional Republicans are incapable of helping everyday Americans. As they work behind closed doors to cut deals that would make their disastrous reconciliation bill even worse, they needed something to occupy Congress's time. So, here we are once again turning to dangerous CRAAS. This time, it is a CRA that would make the air unsafe to breathe as a favor to polluting special interests. The resolution before us today does absolutely nothing to help everyday people and it would actively harm Americans health.
▶ 1:20:39SJRES 31 would hamstring EPA's ability to protect the public from the worst of the worst cancer-causing toxic air pollutants from the largest industrial emitters. The CRA would eliminate a 2024 rule put in place by the Biden administration to ensure that large industrial facilities like chemical plants and oil refineries that emit tons of hazardous air pollutants continue to control that pollution.
▶ 1:21:06These facilities would not be able to reclassify as area sources if they pump some of the worst pollution into the air, specifically from seven of the most dangerous pollutants, including mercury, alkalated lead, and PCBs.
▶ 1:21:20In 1990, Congress identified these and 180 additional pollutants as hazardous because they are known or suspected to cause cancer, birth defects, development disorders, and neurological problems, even an extremely extremely low levels of exposure.
▶ 1:21:37In recognition of this danger, the Clean Air Act requires these major sources to implement maximum achievable control technologies or MC, which are proven technologies that industry leaders have demonstrated are costeffective and available in the real world. Since the 1990s, facilities have been required to cut emissions to the maximum degree of reduction achievable, including completely eliminating hazardous air pollutants when possible.
▶ 1:22:06Rescending this major this rule would allow these major sources to increase their toxic air pollution by millions of pounds each year, endangering the health of American communities. With this resolution, Republicans are giving an estimated 1,800 facilities across our country the green light to permanently shut off their longinstalled pollution control equipment, spew hazardous air pollution into the air with reckless abandonment, and increase cancer-causing pollution without
▶ 1:22:36consequence. The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 is a tremendous success story. It is not only a public health success, but a shining example of how bipartisanship in Congress can indeed benefit the American people. That law was enacted with some 401 votes in the House, and Americans have been able to breathe air with less mercury and other cancer-causing pollution ever since.
▶ 1:23:01This resolution puts that success in deep jeopardy, and it is a sad reflection of the majority's legislative priorities. Americans are struggling to make ends meet and facing the reality that Republicans may soon strip health care from 13.7 million people. But their focus is on repealing common sense rules that make the air safer to breathe. SJRES31 is deeply irresponsible. Congress should be trying to protect Americans, not trying to make them sick.
▶ 1:23:31So I strongly oppose SJRES 31 and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. With that, I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Now recognize Mr. Langworthy for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Chairman Guthrie, and to the uh to my my colleague from New York for being here with us today um on what is in fact a common sense solution that rewards American industry for operating in a cleaner, healthier manner.
▶ 1:24:01Uh can you remind us uh once more today that by shifting a facility's classification from a major source area to area source, would that facility no longer be subject to pollution controls, monitoring, and reporting requirements? So yes, I mean, so that's what it sounded like when when you heard my friend speak, and that's that's absolutely not true. So you get designated a major source of pollution versus an area source. That's the classification above.
▶ 1:24:29And so the the the issue is once you get designated a major source, no matter what you do, you stay a major source forever. Once always in. And so we're saying let's give the incentive for people to lower their their standard where they do operational controls. They say we're not going to operate 24/7, 7 days a week. We're going to do we're going to put other equipment in to get below the area to become an area source. But once you're an area source, you're still subject to the Clean Air Act. You're still subject to to other issues.
▶ 1:24:57is not as costly and it's not at so instead of tying up capital dollars complying you lower your standard so you comply become an area source and you're still subject to Clean Air Act and it was clear there was a 2018 memo when the Trump administration did this that at any time you could be put back into major source category if you if you do emit the level of pollution of a major source. Thank you for clarifying that Mr.
▶ 1:25:23chairman and and I do appreciate you reiterating the point but because it seems to be lost on my Democratic colleagues moving to an area source designation does not exempt a facility from environmental regulations or controls. And to that point under the Trump era policy which this CRA would help pave the way for a facility reaches that area source classification because it sees its hazardous air pollutant emissions return to major source levels, you know, can be classified as a major source again. Isn't that correct? That's correct.
▶ 1:25:53Okay. Thank you, Chairman Guthrie. Clearly, this is about restoring common sense and giving business the tools and incentives to operate more responsibly, not burying them in red tape. And I think that more of my colleagues here who often rail against the so-called big polluters would think this as well. But instead, many side with radical environmental groups that would rather see job creators regulated out of business than be given a real chance to improve and improve our environment.
▶ 1:26:18Uh but simply put uh we don't have to choose between a healthy planet and a strong economy. We can have both uh if we focus on smart policy and not political posturing. So thank you again chairman Guthrie. And with that Mr. Chairman I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Now recognize Miss Scandlin for her questions. Thank you. Um Mr. Tonko I wanted to focus on a an issue that's particularly important in my district and see how the um regulation we're we're discussing relates to that.
▶ 1:26:47So, asthma caused by air pollution is one of the leading environmental health threats that children face in Philadelphia. More than one in five kids in my region suffer from asthma. That's more than three times the national rate. And I'm concerned about what this resolution might mean for kids in the area. Can you explain what the difference is here?
▶ 1:27:25toxic elements whether it's done with application or multitude of those toxins. So it's um you know there is no opportunity here. I think it there's an opportunity to downslide and uh we think that would be tragic for the outcome of the environment and for the region that uh uh that these facilities are located in.
▶ 1:27:47Remember, we've put a lot of focus on environmental justice and that seems to be pulled back uh with the work that's being done on this budget and to make certain that people have appropriate healthc care coverage because if we're putting them at risk, you know, they're now a population in uh in greater woe and making certain that they have this healthc care coverage that EJ is addressed for their given region or neighborhood and that we go forward with the sound rules that require them to be uh
▶ 1:28:17looked at again as the original law had intended. Okay. I I appreciate that because our our Republican colleagues have expressed a lot of concern about the regulatory burden on business, but I'm more concerned about the environmental burden on children in our our region and and the fact that it seems as though if we pass this resolution, it's going to mean more mercury and lead and benzene in the air um and toxins that can cause cancer and birth defects and permanent brain damage.
▶ 1:28:47In addition to um in addition to the issue of asthma, um we've seen developmental problems in children and preventable medical problems that they will have to live with and that we'll all have to pay for one way or the Um you know that that is really my primary concern. So this feels like a an um attempt to remove this regulation.
▶ 1:29:14I don't think you can find a single person other than maybe an oil or gas lobbyist who will tell you that they want more lead in the air. Um, and I'm I'm sure that, you know, folks who can afford to live in big houses far away from refineries and chemical plants and trash to steam plants, etc., um, you know, don't mind how much crap they spew in the air, but it means a lot to the folks in in my region.
▶ 1:29:40um and and you know shifting those burdens of business from the corporation onto the kids in our region doesn't seem like a fair or an honorable trade. So, um I don't really see how this fits with the whole make America healthy again agenda.
▶ 1:29:59Um, I do see how it fits with an effort to kick Americans off their healthcare because once again, um, that's shifting the costs of business to um to everyday Americans and and it does seem to fit with the branding of the Republican party at this point, but it's certainly nothing I want a part of. So, right.
▶ 1:30:16Well, these people would be more at risk and certainly you highlight a number of the health related concerns beyond cancer which is very dangerous and concerning but uh neurological impairment, the asthma issue um a lot of work that uh you know developmental issues that can develop because of these pollutants and it can just be a small fraction of a gram. Well, I mean during our lifetimes we've seen the impact of having cleaner air, cleaner water. Um, we've seen the beneficial impacts of it.
▶ 1:30:46We've seen reduction in these kinds of diseases. Um, we've seen things like, you know, being able to eat fish out of our lakes and rivers because they're not contaminated with mercury. We've seen people be able to play outside, children be able to play outside if they're not combating uh toxic air. So, I I think this takes the wrong path and uh I'd urge a vote against it. Thank you. Thank Thank you, Miss Scandal. Mr. Scott, you're recognized.
▶ 1:31:15Madam Chair, I don't have any questions. I would point out that there seems to be a lot of drama around this. I think we should pass the rule, but the Biden um had 48 months and and my understanding is they put this rule in in September of 2024, correct? After they had basically already lost the last election. Well, se it was put out in September. Yes. September. See, anyway, I support the legislation.
▶ 1:31:43Thank you very much, Miss Leure Fernandez. You're recognized. Hello, Madam Chair, and thank you. Uh, so I'm looking at this rule, and the thing about rules is when you do them, right? You get a lot of input from industry, you get a lot of input from the community, and then you develop the rule. Is is is that how rules usually are generated and created? I mean, right. And the agencies do that. I get input. I'm not sure. Public comment is really important, right?
▶ 1:32:13And I think that's why it's fascinating when you say, "Well, we shouldn't do this because they did it, you know, towards the end." Well, it takes time to gather the input. But I am just I I I read uh what's going to happen and just reading about these mercury, an extremely toxic metal that will then be able to be released
▶ 1:32:44lead. We should be about removing lead from both our pipes and our air. Dioxins and furins, some of the most toxic chemicals known to humankind, PCBs, these anytime you have a hard time saying things like this, the polyyclic organic matter, right?
▶ 1:33:04These are some of the most toxic chemicals that we know And if we do this, it will be that there are, let me see, is this right? Uh um Mr. Tounter, 1,800 industrial facilities will be able to escape the Clean Air Acts pollution limits.
▶ 1:33:28That's the numbers that we've where you have comment period and a um a notice given.
▶ 1:33:42um is an inclusive process that allows for everyone to respond uh with great passion and with great concern and to highlight uh the technical merits of that rule making and I think it's important for us to understand that the numbers that you just quoted are significant in that uh some of the damage here could never be turned around right because some of this damage is brain damage birth defects right you're you're developmentally impaired for
▶ 1:34:12the rest of your life. Is that correct with some of these chemicals? Absolutely. And I think it's making certain that the biggest polluters are maintained in this process where uh they have to abide in accordance with the uh with the rules and uh make certain that they achieve those thresholds that uh have been made possible because of the development of technology. So I think I'm going to go back to a comment we made in the earlier panel that Republicans love to complain about regulation.
▶ 1:34:40What they're what they're really saying is we stand with the biggest corporation instead of the citizens, the residents, the Americans who will be exposed to health risks like this.
▶ 1:34:57Uh and uh you know I'm I I'm just really glad that Democrats are willing to stand uh on the side of our families, especially the ones who live near these facilities. And and the jobs are important, but you should not have sacrifice your health, the health of your unborn child and your children for that job. It should be clean and it's you can clean it up.
▶ 1:35:25So, I do appreciate that if we had this rule, you'd be forced to clean up the mess before it goes out of the smoke stack. Is that correct, Mr. I think it's important too to recognize that a great impetus was placed on uh reducing the harms to some neighborhoods that are host to these facilities by investing a lot of the funds from recent past history successes that were done that invest the funds to uh address air pollution and monitor those efforts so that uh
▶ 1:35:56there's achievable results and success for the people in those neighborhoods. And this is a this is a process of getting cleaner air and cleaner water that the United States has been embarked on in Democratic and Republican administrations until we ran into uh the Trump administration both last time and now this time where they are simply abandoning this progress that we have made that really is about America's promise to say let us
▶ 1:36:26be an industrial leader but still clean up the air. So, you know, I am hopeful, you know, we know we know where the votes are. I don't think we'll get a single Republican standing up for their constituents and clean air, but thank you very much for uh bringing this before us. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez. Mr. Griffith, you're Chairman Guthrie, I was just looking since the whole issue of mercury and others has come up.
▶ 1:36:55I was looking at uh for some learned documents and treatises, but I recall and found some from the early 2000s into the uh up as late as 2016 and was looking for some others and some really interesting stuff going on. But isn't it true that a significant percentage and at one time a majority and I can't say whether it's still a majority of the mercury found in the western part of the United States actually came from Asian pollution sites.
▶ 1:37:24understand that study. I'm I don't know which one you're actually quoting, but I've heard that as well. But can I just kind of Yes, please. So, um actually I went to college in the Hudson Valley and other than Kentucky. It's probably one of the most beautiful places in our country and and you couldn't swim in the Hudson River. Yeah. Other than Kentucky, but and you you couldn't get in the water because uh because of what had happened in industrial. That's not what we want. That's not what I'm advocating.
▶ 1:37:49Matter of fact, when I first, other than just the famous name, when I first ever heard of our current health secretary, he was leading the fight to clean up the Hudson River uh back in the 1980s when I was in college. And so, um gosh, I I absolutely are not here advocating for anything near that. And it it sounds like we're trying to get rid of the regulation that deregulates all these these pollutants and and we're absolutely not.
▶ 1:38:12What we're saying is if you're a business in the areas or anywhere, but areas you talk about where it affects our kids, our families, our rivers, but this is clean air, not clean water, but but clean air, but all of it. And you're identified as a major source because you break a threshold and should be you're because you break the threshold, you're identified as a major source and you should be identified as a major source. We're not debating that.
▶ 1:38:38The question is, if you do the environmental cleaning of your business, operational hours, put the equipment in place to bring yourself below the threshold of being a major source, then you fall under the Clean Air Act. You're still regulated, but you're regulated under area sources.
▶ 1:38:53And that that's what we're arguing is not getting rid of a getting it rid of regulating these businesses, just how you're classified and encouraged businesses that are identified as a major source to do the work to eliminate the pollution to lower it to a point where they're an area source. That's what we're arguing. And and Mr.
▶ 1:39:13Chairman, isn't it true that that if you can't go back down, so you you you go up over the limit, you figure out, okay, wait a minute, we we didn't do it the way we should have on this, and you go back down, you become a small source, you're more likely to stay with your manufacturing at that location instead of maybe looking to offshore it somewhere else where they don't have any regulations or have many regulations compared to our regulations.
▶ 1:39:34because if if you go into that category of the major source permanently, you're going to have more expense and more uh long-term more expense and more of an issue. So, if you're on the on the fence about whether you should shut down your American facility and move somewhere else, that could be the tipping point, could it not?
▶ 1:39:53Well, it it does bring in a an incentive to to move or relocate or just stay a major source and not put in the effort or the operational different things you can do as a business to lower your output. You just be qualified as a major source. Report your major source and but it it's it's and I don't think people who put this in place intends that, but it certainly is an incentive to stay a major source and not become an area. It's a disincentive to clean up the the pollution, right?
▶ 1:40:21And so you would be better off to have this uh CRA passed so that if somebody became a major source but then was able to put in controls or mechanisms or figure out how to do it correctly they could once again become an area source is still regulated but regulated as an area source under the Clean Air Act as opposed to a major source under the Clean Air under if this CRA passes if you are a major source poller or a miss emissions a major source you remain a major
▶ 1:40:51source If you do the work, the equipment, the operational, anything you can do to lower yourself below that standard that made you a major source, then you become an area source. At any time, if you become an area source and you become a major source emitter again, you become a major source again. But it does give you incentive to get below that threshold because it you get to operate in a you're operating cleaner. So you get to operate in a cleaner way. Yeah. And that's the whole idea.
▶ 1:41:19And my concern is is that if we don't have a reasonable requirement like that says you can move back down to an area source, you're more likely to move overseas. And in it's always driven me crazy, Mr.
▶ 1:41:31chairman that my colleagues even even with their good intentions sometimes force these businesses to countries that don't have the the regulations cement to Mexico industries to Asia and the next thing you know the the air brings all that stuff back maybe not as much as what is emitted in China or in Mexico but we still get the air pollution and in many cases greater than what we would have gotten if we had had reasonable regulations And what you're
▶ 1:42:02trying to do here is to have regulations, but make it so that if somebody's cleaning up their act, they can actually move down to an area source. As we think common sense, if we repeal this, it does not take a major source to an area source. You only get to become an area source if you if you if your emissions fall below the threshold, which is not all. You you have to clean up and that's what I think that's that's common to what we want. Absolutely. I agree and I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr.
▶ 1:42:32Norman. You're Mr. Jack, you're recognized. Well, I'll just thank the chairman uh for your continued pursu of uh deregulation. It's something you campaigned on, I campaigned on, President Trump campaigned on, and clearly the American people want to continue to see. Um, the only question that I have is I just would like noted for the record the as I standed the introducer on the Senate side is Mr.
▶ 1:43:00Curtis who is one of the more environmentally you know friendly Republicans in our Congress and would love to hear any thoughts. You served with him. I did not yet have that privilege to do so in the House but uh would welcome any thoughts on on his sponsorship of this. Well, he's one of my dear friends here and and he he did leave what we call the Kermit Conservative Climate Caucus and and he always started with a premise that less carbon is better.
▶ 1:43:24So, we always let's come up with what we can agree on and I think you could just extrapolate him saying that less pollution we all agree less pollution is better and and I do believe this is an incentive to have less pollution admitted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back to you. Madam Chair, I would only note that uh there's no evidence that these corporations would invest more uh with advanced technology or or that they would not turn off some of their controls. Look, the data compilation is important here as we're gutting an agency.
▶ 1:43:55The public has a right to know. The compilation needs to be done. It needs to be shared. and uh whatever that source of mercury might be is what we're going to attack as a as a uh a goal as a challenge to provide for better outcomes public health-wise for Americans. Thank you, Mr. Teleno. Um Chair Guthrie and Mr. Griffith, I just want to thank you for the interaction that went on between you and for what Mr.
▶ 1:44:24Jack said for setting the record straight on what this CRA does and doesn't do. I think it's just extremely important that that happen. I was going to have a line of questioning along that that questions along those lines. So, I appreciate uh the clarification that you made.
▶ 1:44:44With that, the committee will stand in recess until The
▶ 2:26:08committee will reconvene. The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from New York, Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the committee grant SJR res 13 providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 United States code of the rule submitted by the office of the controller of the currency of the department of the treasury relating to the review of applications under the bank merger act a closed rule
▶ 2:26:39the rule waves all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution. The rule provides that the joint resolution shall be considered as read. The rule waves all points of order against provisions in the joint resolution. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on financial services or their respective design. The rule provides one motion to commit.
▶ 2:27:03The rule provides for consideration of SJRES 31 provided providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5 United States Code of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the review of final rule reclassification of major sources as area sources under section 112 of the Clean Air Act under a closed rule. The rule waves all points of order against the consideration of the joint resolution.
▶ 2:27:33The rule provides that the joint resolution shall be considered as read. The rule waves all points of order against the provisions in the joint resolution. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce or their respective design. The rule provides one motion to commit.
▶ 2:27:54Finally, the rule provides that the requirement of clause 6A of rule 13 for a twothirds vote to consider a report from the committee on rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waved with respect to any resolution reported through the legislative day of May 23rd, 2025 relating to a measure providing for reconciliation pursuant to the title two of HCRES
▶ 2:28:27Thank you very much, Mr. Langworthy. You now heard the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule? Mr. McGover? Yeah, I I'm just going to offer one amendment. Uh, and that is uh you know, I uh that we move to strike section three of the resolution. Um, and the reason why I I'm doing that is because, uh, this is an enormous bill we're talking about here, um, that's going to impact millions and millions of people.
▶ 2:28:58Uh, and, you know, we we need to make sure that we understand what we're voting for. We need to give CBO an opportunity to do any new calculations that they need to that they need to do. Um, and there's no and there's no like real deadline here. It's an an artificial madeup deadline that you have come up with.
▶ 2:29:18And so, can we can we all at least agree that people ought to have a we ought to we ought to do our due diligence here today and not uh not rush this thing to the floor um in a way that again doesn't even give CBO the ability to um to review this stuff. Um and again, things are changing as well. I mean, I you know, I I'm hearing about all these side deals that are being made and and that may be pleasing to some people on this panel. I just don't know what they mean.
▶ 2:29:47Um, and major changes are being made. Uh, and I think we ought to have have an opportunity to to be able to review it. And the other thing is I I I thought you guys were against same day rules, but I guess I was wrong. So, I would urge uh I would urge that we again support my amendment to strike section three. Madam Chair, can I speak to the amendment? Well, I was going to respond. Oh, okay. Okay.
▶ 2:30:17Thank you, Miss Kim. Same day authority is a long-standing tool utilized by both sides of the aisle designed to provide flexibility for urgent and time-sensitive matters. And that's certainly the case for this week. The rule before us today provides same day authority and limits it to only legislation related to reconciliation through the end of the week. This concise, narrow application is an appropriate use.
▶ 2:30:47Let's contrast that to when the Democrats previously held the gavl. During this time, for an unprecedented nearly 2year period, the House continuously operated with same day authority for any measure. While this may have been necessary to respond rapidly during the early stages of the COVID pandemic, simply put, it became a tool of convenience for then Speaker Pelosi.
▶ 2:31:18Once again, those in glass houses should not throw stones. Miss Scan, if I can just respond, Miss Ganlin, you're recognized. I would to the ranking members to the the rule that you're referring to uh was during the pandemic. Um, and these were extraordinary times. But the other thing is we're dealing with a bill right now that's going to add5 trillion dollars to the deficit.
▶ 2:31:40And I, you know, and and again, uh, and I don't know what the emergency is because again, uh, there's nothing that says you can't do this when you get back. I mean, nothing happens. Um, and you have an opportunity to make sure that all your members and certainly all our members know what the hell they're voting on. Um, and know what the implications are. So, I again I I I I would I yield back to Miss Scanland. Thank you. I mean, I have to support this amendment.
▶ 2:32:09We've got a bill that is incredibly amorphous. We we are learning more about what's in the bill from tweets that are online or or various reporting, but we certainly don't have a final version of the bill yet. The last version of it that was voted on was at 10:00 on a Sunday night. So, not exactly a time when people are around to be able to digest it. Now, we're going to take it up again. Uh 1:00 Wednesday morning. Um that's hardly responsible legislation.
▶ 2:32:38And as uh the ranking member mentioned, this is a bill that uh thus far has caused Moody's and other agencies to downgrade uh the US bond ratings. Um we don't have a CBO score on it. The whole rationale for this bill is supposed to be um to address the deficit when in fact it's going to raise the deficit by three to five trillion dollars.
▶ 2:33:02your whole rationale for cutting 8 to 13 million people off Medicaid is that you have to reduce the deficit, but it appears to be uh a charade. So, uh I think this amendment does a good job of calling the charade out for what it is. There's no reason to rush this. Um the fact that it's being called pursuant to an emergency rules committee is another part of the charade. Um and so I think we should uh hold the line.
▶ 2:33:29I hope everyone takes a stand against same day authorization here instead of simply voting present. Say I yield back. Well, I'm going to recognize my colleagues here in just a moment, but I I do want to say um there there are no side deals being uh made. The bill is out there. It has been out there.
▶ 2:33:53Uh so everybody has had a chance to read it who wants to read it and when there is a manager's amendment then that will be where the uh changes are and they'll be clearly clearly identified. So we're not we're not talking about you're not being able to read the bill. Um but uh I'm going to now recognize Mr.
▶ 2:34:21Langworthy if you have do you have any any any comments any further discussion on our side? Oh, Mr. Fernandez, since since your side doesn't really want to uh discuss uh the idea of fasttracking this bill, uh you know, I would I would suggest maybe we invite Mr. Rory back because Mr.
▶ 2:34:47Roy has been very vocal about adhering to these rules which were negotiated so that they would have enough time. Uh perhaps we can wait to vote till he comes back in. But in the meantime, while we perhaps wait for him to come back in since nobody else seems to want to speak to it, but maybe now uh somebody will want to do in response. You know, Mr.
▶ 2:35:10Arrington, the chair of the budget committee, when it was pointed out repeatedly that there was no CBO score for what the budget committee passed out, said that there would be one, and we don't have one yet. So, I think without a CBO score, we can't address the issues that some of my colleagues here have said are very important about the deficit. Is it $5 trillion? Is it four? We know it's a lot. It's a lot. It's a lot.
▶ 2:35:40I mean, I'm very worried about Mr. Massiey's little, you know, timer. It's going to be burning a hole in his suit. And whether or not he can convince any of his colleagues who say they also believe in reigning in the deficit, how can you talk about it if you don't know what the CBO score is? And and we just heard earlier, Madame Chair, that there were going to be tweaks to the bill.
▶ 2:36:09Now, we don't know what those tweaks are. Tweaks could be some grammatical changes or tweaks could be significant. So, to say that there aren't any changes when earlier tonight we heard there was going to be tweaks. And once again, we have been downgraded. Our credit rating has been downgraded. Aren't Republicans freaked out?
▶ 2:36:37The idea that the United States credit has been downgraded because of the bill that you were ramming through in our vampire committee hearing that starts at 1:00 a.m.
▶ 2:36:51You should at least let us have a night and morning and dawn of discussion and let it let it sink in because the American people and in fact a lot of Republicans don't know what's in that bill. Like you should give your own caucus the time to understand what's in that bill, tweaks and all.
▶ 2:37:16Uh and so with that, um Madame Chair, uh I would urge especially for those who talk about this all the time, uh Mr. Norman, Mr. Roy, have them, you know, weigh in on this. So I don't see the door opening again to see if Mr. Roy will come back. Do you yield back?
▶ 2:37:46I was hoping Mr. War would come back. He was just here. This is something he talks about all the time. He cares a lot about see no movement. See no comment from the Republicans. I yield back. Hearing no further discussion. The question is on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed, no. No. In the opinion the chair and the nos have it. The amendments not agreed to.
▶ 2:38:15As for roll call, Madam Chair, Mr. McGovern requests a roll call vote. The clerk will call the role. Mrs. Fishbach. Mr. Norman. Mr. Norman. No. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Hchin? Mrs. Hchin? No. Mr. Langworthy? No. Mr. Langworthy? No. Mr. Scott? No. Mr. Scott? No. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Griffith? No. Mr. Jack? No. Mr. Jack? No. Mr. McGovern. I. Mr. McGovern. I miss Scallan. Hi. Scallan. I. Mr. Negus. Miss Ledger Fernandez. Hi.
▶ 2:38:45M Ledger Fernandez. I Madam Chair. No. Madam Chair, no. The clerk will report the tally. Three, seven, and the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Are there any other amendments or discussion? Uh, hearing no further discussion. The questions on the motion from the gentleman from New York. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Those opposed say no. No.
▶ 2:39:13In the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. The motion's agreed to. Mr. McGovern, uh, request a recorded vote. The clerk will call the role. Mrs. Fishbach. Mr. Norman. Yay. Mr. Norman. Yay. Mr. Roy. Mrs. Souchin. Yes. I, Mr. Langworthy. I, Mr. Langworthy. I, Mr. Scott. I, Mr. Scott. I, Mr. Griffith. I, Mr. Griffith. I, Mr. Jack. I, Mr. Jack. I, Mr. McGovern. No. Mr.
▶ 2:39:43McGovern, no. Miss Scallan, no. Scan, no. Mr. Negus. Miss Ledger Fernandez. Miss Ledger Fernandez, no. Madame Chair, I. Madam Chair, I clerk will report the tally. Seven yays, three nays. Uh, the and the eyes have it. The motion to report is agreed to accordingly. The gentleman from New York, Mr.
▶ 2:40:10Langworthy will be managing this rule for the majority and I'll manage it for the Democrats. Mr. McGovern manages for the Democrats. Without objection, the committee is