Andy Barr

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of a very special patriot, Henry Gerald Gish. A tragic casualty of the Vietnam War, U.S. Air Force Staff Sergeant Jerry Gish's remains were identified by the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency on June 23, 2025. SSgt. Jerry Gish was born in Hershey, Pennsylvania on December 18, 1942, and grew up in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Following high school graduation, SSgt. Gish entered the U.S. Air Force in 1961. He served with Detachment 1, 1043rd Radar Evaluation Squadron. In 1968, SSgt. Gish and 18 other men were assigned to Lima Site 85, a tactical air navigation radar site on a remote 5,600-foot mountain peak called Phou Pha Thi in Houaphan Province in Laos. In the early morning of March 11, 1968, North Vietnamese commandos attacked the site with grenades and mortars. The Americans sought safety on a narrow ledge of the steep mountain. After a few hours, U.S. helicopters were able to rescue eight of the men under the protective cover of A-1 Skyraider aircraft. SSgt. Gish and ten other Americans were killed in action, and their bodies were unable to be recovered. From 1994 to 2009, joint teams led by the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command conducted multiple recovery operations, pursuing witness leads and recovering evidence and remains. In 2023, Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency personnel in Hawaii and members from partner organizations discovered unexploded ordinance, incident-related materials, and possible remains, leading to the identification of an American service member. In 2025, two more excavations were conducted at the site and human remains were recovered. Modern forensic techniques were used to identify SSgt. Gish. He is survived by his wife Doris Eden Gish, daughter Terrie Gish Bayless, and sister Janice Kautz as well as several other family members. SSgt. Gish is memorialized on the Courts of the Missing at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific in Honolulu. His name, and the names of his fallen comrades, are inscribed on the Vietnam Memorial Wall inWashington, D.C. After 57 years, the remains of this courageous patriot are being returned home for final rest with full military honors at the Berea Cemetery in Kentucky. I am grateful to the DPAA personnel who worked diligently to recover and identify his remains. I am also grateful to SSgt. Jerry Gish, who gave the ultimate sacrifice when our Nation called. May he never be forgotten and may he rest in eternal peace.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of Suicide Prevention Month, I rise to honor Stable Recovery for their work around mental health, suicide, and addiction. Stable Recovery is a small, peer-driven, equine-focused rehabilitation program located in Kentucky. This program was launched on Taylor Made Farm in 2022 by co-founders Frank Taylor and Christian Countzler. Their vision was simple but powerful: to help individuals find strength and healing through the power of the horse, the principles of 12-step recovery, and the dignity of meaningful work. The School of Horsemanship, created by Frank Taylor and built on decades of horsemanship knowledge, provides a 90-day residential program for education and healing. Residents find structure, discipline, and purpose as they learn equine care, farm work, financial independence and participate in daily therapy, support groups, and 12- step instruction. The goal was to not only allow residents to thrive and learn in recovery but to provide a natural employment pathway to jobs in the equine industry, an industry that needs more skilled talent. The horse industry has been extraordinarily supportive. In just three short years, Stable Recovery has already seen lives transformed and exceptional growth. They credit their success to evidence based clinical practices, consistency of the program, mentorship, community and the healing power of horses. The men and women that have completed the program have reached milestones of sobriety. Many now live in recovery while working in the equine industry. Stable Recovery's metrics exceed national norms. As of today, 80 percent of Stable Recovery's legacy graduates remain sober and are employed in the equine industry. Generous individuals and organizations, like HISA and Jockeys' Guild, believe in their mission. Their support has given residents a chance to recover at Taylor Made Farm and strategic partners have provided stable employment, allowing graduates to build lives of independence and purpose. I am honored to recognize the work of Stable Recovery as we consider their incredible work for our community and what more can be done to prevent suicide in our Nation. We can heal people through horses, and in the process, create better lives, stronger families, and the opportunity of a bright future.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Bruce Wayne Pieratt of Lexington, Kentucky. Mr. Pieratt passed away on August 17, 2025, just one day after his 79th birthday. Mr. Pieratt was born on August 16, 1946, and raised in a loving home. He graduated from Lexington's Lafayette High School. An outstanding athlete, he earned All-City, All-Central Kentucky, and All-State honors in football and attended Oklahoma State University on a football scholarship. He was recognized for academics on the All-Big 8 Academic Team. Following graduation, Mr. Pieratt returned to Lexington and married Patsy, his sweetheart who he met in seventh grade. Mr. Pieratt went to work at Pieratt's, the family business founded in 1946 by his father Frank, a WWII veteran. The business started as a radio and small appliance repair shop and rapidly expanded. Mr. Pieratt worked alongside his father, brothers, brother-in-law, and nephews and helped grow Pieratt's into one of the most respected retailers in Central Kentucky. In 1988, Bruce Pieratt was named President and CEO, a role he held until 2021 when the company sold. A true patriot who loved his country and believed in serving, Mr. Pieratt joined the Kentucky Army National Guard in 1968. He had a long and distinguished military career over thirty-one years. He served Kentucky as Assistant Adjutant General-Army and attained the rank of Brigadier General. Mr. Pieratt was a loyal supporter of the University of Kentucky. He served on many boards and community organizations across Kentucky where his leadership was widely respected. He and his wife Patsy had three daughters, Nicole, Noel, and Nalise, and eight grandchildren. In a life filled with great accomplishments, he was most proud of his family. A patriotic American, a respected community leader, a family man, and a true friend to many, he touched countless lives. I am honored to call Brigadier General Bruce Pieratt my friend and to lift up his life before the House of Representatives.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington State and Chairman Mast for supporting the legislation. I thank my friend, the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), for his bipartisan support, as well. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my legislation, H.R. 747, the Stop Chinese Fentanyl Act. The fentanyl crisis is one of the most significant threats to our country and continues to plague families and neighbors across the United States. My home State of Kentucky, sadly, has been ravaged by the fentanyl crisis. Drug overdoses are the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45, and fentanyl is responsible for nearly 70 percent of these deaths. Last year, the DEA seized more than 60 million fentanyl-laced fake pills in the United States and almost 8,000 pounds of fentanyl power equal to more than 380 million lethal doses of fentanyl. As of last month, the 2025 seizures of fentanyl equate to over 232 million deadly doses and 70,000 of our fellow Americans succumbed to this poison. In 2024, over 1,400 Kentuckians lost their lives to a drug overdose, including fentanyl. Unfortunately, this scourge has spread with the help of our greatest strategic adversary, the People's Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party. As a member of the Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, we conducted an investigation, and that investigation in the last Congress established that the PRC Government, under the control of the Chinese Communist Party, directly subsidizes the manufacturing and export of illicit fentanyl materials and other synthetic narcotics through tax rebates. Many of these substances are illegal under the PRC's own laws and have no known legal use worldwide. Like its export tax rebates for legitimate goods, the CCP's subsidies of illegal drugs incentivize international synthetic drug sales from the People's Republic of China, and the CCP never disclosed this program. In addition, the select committee found that the CCP gave monetary grants and awards to companies openly trafficking illicit fentanyl materials and other synthetic narcotics. There are even examples of some of these companies enjoying site visits from provincial PRC Government officials, who complimented them for their impact on the provincial economy. The CCP holds an ownership interest in several PRC companies tied to drug trafficking, including a PRC Government prison connected to human rights abuses, owning a drug trafficking chemical company, and a publicly traded PRC company hosting thousands of instances of open drug trafficking on its sites. The PRC failed to prosecute fentanyl and precursor manufacturers. Rather than investigating drug traffickers, the Government of the PRC security services have not cooperated with U.S. law enforcement and have even notified targets of U.S. investigations when they receive requests for assistance. The PRC allows for the open sale of fentanyl precursors and other illicit materials on the extensively monitored and controlled PRC internet. A review of just seven e-commerce sites found over 31,000 instances of PRC companies selling illicit chemicals with obvious ties to drug trafficking. Undercover communications with PRC drug trafficking companies revealed an eagerness to engage in clearly illicit drug sales with no fear of reprisal. The government in China censors content about domestic drug sales, but leaves export-focused narcotic content untouched. We know that China has historically been and remains the primary source of fentanyl in global circulation through the production of these precursor chemicals and outsourcing the final production to cartel labs in Mexico. That is why it is paramount that Congress pass my legislation that is being considered here today, the Stop Chinese Fentanyl Act. My bill amends the Fentanyl Sanctions Act to expand the definition of ``foreign opioid trafficker'' to include certain Chinese entities and government officials that fail to take steps to prevent opioid trafficking, subjecting them to sanctions. The bill also requires the President to determine whether the heads of the National Narcotics Control Commission, the Ministry of Public Security, the General Administration of Customs, and the National Medical Products Administration of the Government of the PRC are foreign opioid traffickers. We must attack the production of fentanyl by targeting the source of precursors in China. Chinese producers of synthetic opioids and opioid precursors and senior government and Chinese political officials' culpability does not end when their precursor products land in Mexico or illegally cross our southern border. We must look at every step of fentanyl's deadly supply chain and hold our adversaries accountable. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the passage of the GENIUS Act, and I thank Chairman Hill for his extraordinary leadership, not just in this Congress, but for a long time advocating for this moment. He deserves a tremendous amount of credit for persevering and working and marshaling bipartisan, bicameral support. I thank him for his tremendous leadership. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil) for being a subject- matter expert and working in a bipartisan way to build a bipartisan coalition for this moment. There has been a lot of talk, Mr. Speaker, made in this term of Congress about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It is a historic piece of legislation, no doubt. It is going to supercharge our economy. It is jet fuel for our economy. They are the biggest tax cuts we have ever seen in this country's history. Yet, I would argue, with all respect, that, arguably, the most important and most transformational pieces of legislation in this Congress are these bills that we are talking about here today, the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act. It is paramount that we send this historic piece of legislation, the GENIUS Act, to the President's desk because this bill is the first of its kind in creating a regulatory framework for the future of stablecoin issuance in the United States to revolutionize finance and payments in this country and around the globe. Not only will this cement us, the United States, for decades to come as leaders and innovators in the digital asset space, but it will, importantly, protect the U.S. dollar's dominance and increase demand in our Treasury market. In the GENIUS Act, stablecoins become pegged to the U.S. dollar and backed by high-quality liquid assets. Mr. Speaker, in stark contrast to what my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten), was arguing, this actually prevents these other so-called stablecoins from actually thriving in the marketplace. You are going to have stablecoins that actually are stable. That is why we need the bill. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten) is actually making the argument for us. He is making the argument for why he should support the GENIUS Act. It is because of unstable stablecoins that are out there. Those products will lose ground in the marketplace after we pass the GENIUS Act. It will ensure that consumers are protected while reaping the benefits of blockchain technology. The GENIUS Act will allow for scalability to occur in the stablecoin marketplace, ensuring American consumers and businesses have access to this innovative product. Both banks and nonbanks can issue stablecoins under the GENIUS Act, bringing together the best actors in both the traditional finance space and the new era of digital finance. The GENIUS Act provides that all appropriately regulated banks, including the U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations, which are supervised by the Federal Reserve, are treated equally to their U.S. peers. This is particularly important with respect to the issuance, reserve and custody services, and bank capital requirements irrespective of whether they are deposit insured since the act prohibits stablecoins from being covered by FDI insurance. A robust, well-regulated stablecoin market eliminates any justification for a government controlled Central Bank Digital Currency, or CBDC, which jeopardizes Americans' access to freedom, privacy, and apolitical private capital. This is an important point for all of my colleagues on my side of the aisle who share my concern and opposition to a CBDC. If you want to put a dagger in the heart of this crazy surveillance state idea of a Central Bank Digital Currency, pass this bill. I urge all Members to vote for this bill, vote for the GENIUS Act, which will eliminate all arguments for a CBDC. With the GENIUS Act, we will increase the speed and decrease the cost of payments. We will decrease and eliminate friction from our payment system. If all Americans see housing their deposits via a CBDC at the Federal Reserve as a risk-free proposition, they would be incentivized to pull their money out of private-sector banks. The Speaker pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. BARR. Just to conclude, we want to avoid eroding the deposit base and starving the private sector of conventional bank financing. The GENIUS Act will not erode the deposit base. It will allow banks to issue and custody stablecoins and participate in this emerging crypto economy cementing the dollar as the world's reserve currency, protecting consumers and the deposit base, and supercharging the Treasury market.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my friend from Minnesota, Whip Emmer's bill, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, a bill I am proud to cosponsor. This bill would prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency, or a CBDC, to anyone. I don't think the Federal Reserve has the authority to do this. In fact, a cursory, simple review of the Federal Reserve Act shows that the Federal Reserve does not have the legal authority to issue a CBDC to individuals absent explicit authorizing legislation from Congress. The Supreme Court has also recognized Congress' power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, implicitly denying to the executive branch or to the Fed the ability to do this without congressional authority. That said, I think it is prudent to explicitly deprive the Fed of the authority to do this for a variety of reasons. As has been said, Americans' financial privacy is at stake here, and we should not try to compete with China by becoming more like China. The argument for a CBDC that Beijing is doing this, so we should do it, too, why on Earth would we want to imitate, emulate, or copy Beijing's surveillance-state authoritarianism? To my friend on the other side of the aisle who just made the argument that we are behind and the European Central Bank is doing this, when have we in this country, the United States of America, wanted to emulate Europe? This is America. We do it the American way, not the European way, not the Chinese way, and not the Communist, socialist way. We do it the free enterprise way. We do it the limited government way. We do it the way to honor Americans' privacy through the GENIUS Act and through private stablecoins. That is the way we should do it. That is the way we should lead in innovation. Yes, personal privacy is at stake. Surveillance of Americans' individual financial transactions through a CBDC does raise serious privacy concerns and concerns about government control and politicization of loans, online payments, credit scores, tax compliance, Federal contracts, monetary policy, and the like. In addition to these privacy concerns, a central bank digital currency would centralize Americans' finances, eroding the banking deposit base. That would decrease competition and choice. This is a big concern that I have, that a CBDC would substantially decrease the availability of credit and increase the cost of financial services and products for consumers, destroying our conventional, traditional banking system. Our banking system, in contrast to Europe and China, is the envy of the world due to its free market principles, dynamism, and diversity. Banks of all different sizes serve customers, communities, and businesses with all different needs. Capitalism promotes market demands, which incentivize banks to offer products that fit the needs of their consumers at the best price possible. We don't want to eliminate that. We don't want to erode the deposit base with a CBDC. I ask, Mr. Speaker, would we truly want to lose the benefits of a diverse banking system that makes the U.S. the global leader in the financial system? Do we want to take actions to be more like China or Europe and decrease Americans' right to privacy? I went to the European Central Bank. I heard them lecture us about a CBDC, and it made me more convinced than ever that we don't want to be like Europe. The answer is that we do not want to be like Europe and that we do not want to be like the Communists in Beijing. We must disintermediate our banking system and allow for the creation of a CBDC. We must not threaten Americans' access to privacy. That is why I support this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to do so, as well. If my Republican colleagues really don't like a CBDC, then vote for the GENIUS Act, which takes away all the arguments for it.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, President Trump is once again keeping his promises to the American people. He promised he would stop the largest tax increase in America history. He promised he would make the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent. He promised he would deliver the largest tax cut for hardworking taxpayers in American history, and he promised to eliminate taxes on tips, overtime, and Social Security benefits. President Trump is keeping his word. He is delivering much-needed relief for the American people, and this will produce an investment surge, driving real median incomes up by $10,000 relative to the scenario in which the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is allowed to expire. To my friend from California, if he cares about fiscal responsibility, stopping a $4.5 trillion tax increase stops a recession. You cannot balance the budget without growth.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, my flight to DCA was delayed and American Airlines lost my checked bag. There was then heavy traffic from DCA prior to these votes. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 172; YEA on Roll Call No. 173; and YEA on Roll Call No. 174.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 426, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 13) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency of the Department of the Treasury relating to the review of applications under the Bank Merger Act, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this joint resolution of disapproval that would nullify the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's final rule that makes it more difficult for banks to merge and merge in a healthy way. That is why I introduced the House companion, H.J. Res. 92. Today, we have the opportunity to prevent future administrations from issuing arbitrary rules on mergers and acquisitions that lack robust cost-benefit analysis and would make it significantly harder for financial institutions to grow and compete. Banks in the great Commonwealth of Kentucky and throughout the country are facing challenges in managing the high costs of complex regulations. Furthermore, customers now demand advanced technological features, such as mobile and online banking, which require substantial capital investments. Mergers often present the only viable path for these institutions to keep up with these regulatory and technological costs and continue serving their local communities. They also play a vital role in ensuring the safety and soundness of the financial system. By enabling stronger, well-managed institutions to acquire weaker ones, especially those struggling due to local economic conditions, we can prevent bank failures and the panic that they cause. Instead of making it harder for banks to merge, we should be eliminating outside obstacles to mergers, enhancing competition and innovation, and ensuring that Americans, especially those in rural and underserved communities, retain access to physical branches with employees who understand their local economies. That is why I introduced H.R. 1900, the Bank Failure Prevention Act, which includes a shot clock to ensure timely decisions on merger applications. Mr. Speaker, I come from Kentucky. It is a basketball-crazed Commonwealth, and we care about the shot clock. Congress should care about the shot clock on merger applications, as well. My bill would restore fairness and predictability, preventing delays and giving banks the stability they need to focus on serving their customers and growing their businesses. The Bank Failure Prevention Act will help community banks and regional banks thrive in today's competitive environment, providing for a shot clock on the review of those merger applications and providing better outcomes for consumers. I look forward to marking up this important legislation in the House Financial Services Committee this week. The OCC's merger rule under the Biden administration would have taken us in the exact opposite direction. It would have upended decades of precedent by shifting the burden onto banks to prove their merger should be approved rather than requiring the OCC to demonstrate how the merger conflicts with statutory factors. This would be fundamentally unfair, increasing confusion for banks seeking to merge and massively increasing the delay on the pendency and review of these applications without any kind of deadline on the review. Additionally, the rule would have abandoned expedited review for mergers for small, well-capitalized banks. Before the Biden-era regulation, there was an opportunity for expedited review of healthy mergers when there were small and well-capitalized institutions involved. Unfortunately, because of the Biden regulation, this resulted in a much more protracted process. Expedited reviews are essential to avoid prolonged, costly merger review processes that hinder banks from maintaining their employee base or investing in technology. Instead, long-drawn-out application processes create an environment of uncertainty due to regulatory delays, even when the proposed transaction is relatively simple. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, consumers are the ones who are hurt most when their banks are caught in limbo and forced to devote resources to navigate the merger process instead of enhancing their own products and services. The Democratic-led OCC rule was driven more by a progressive ideology against mergers in all sectors of all kinds in the economy rather than sound, rational policymaking. In fact, the Biden-Harris OCC did not even coordinate with the other banking regulators, such as the Federal Reserve Board, before issuing this final rule. Creating different merger rules for banks with different charters would add significant ambiguity for both banks and their customers. Thankfully, the current OCC under President Trump has recently indicated they will abandon this flawed rule. However, without this Congressional Review Act resolution, there is nothing to prevent a future administration from reintroducing this damaging rule that would prevent healthy, beneficial mergers from occurring. Community and regional banks, as well as their customers, should not have to fear that the rules will change dramatically in a few years. Mr. Speaker, I can already anticipate the argument from my good friend from California. I know what she is going to say here in just a few minutes. She is going to say: Look at the Republicans. They are supporting mergers of big, bad banks, and that hurts Americans. To the contrary, Mr. Speaker. Allowing healthy mergers to prevent bank failures allows for healthy financial institutions to compete with the big Wall Street banks. If you want more competition for big Wall Street banks, you should support this resolution of disapproval because you are going to create stronger competitors to the big Wall Street banks. Opposing this resolution, like the gentlewoman and ranking member of our committee is about ready to do, is defending the regulatory moat that protects big banks from real competition. The Democrats' opposition here is defending big banks without competition, and that is why I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support healthy competition to prevent bank failures and to disapprove of this unwise regulation from the Biden administration. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution and prevent the regulatory whipsaw that has proven so detrimental for banking institutions and the American people who rely on them. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I yield some time to my good friend from Florida, I will take the opportunity to respond to a few of the points that my friend from California made that maybe she is misunderstanding what the law actually says. When I refer to the law, I am referring to the Congressional Review Act, which is the statute that we are invoking here to invalidate this Biden-era regulation. The gentlewoman from California says that: This is a waste of time. The Trump OCC has rescinded the rule. We don't need to do this. I would remind the gentlewoman from California the reason why we need to do this. The reason why we are invoking the provisions of the Congressional Review Act is that passing a resolution of disapproval under this law ensures that a substantially similar bad rule can never be reintroduced in the future without scrutiny. We obviously know that there are bad regulators from the prior administration that prevented healthy mergers that would have prevented bank failures. There is no guarantee that we are not going to have an equally bad regulator in the future. That is why we have to take out this insurance policy against bad regulators in the future. That is what the CRA is. It sends a clear message about balanced regulations that foster competition and innovation without excessive bureaucracy, and it safeguards against unchecked regulatory actions, ensuring that future rules undergo careful oversight. Now I will address this assertion that bank merger applications are just rubber-stamped by regulators. If there is any evidence that that is not true, it is proof from the prior administration. Not only was there not a rubberstamp, there was so much scrutiny that they never happened. They languished. There was no shot clock. There was no review. They just sat there and languished. Do you know what happened as a result? Banks withered on the vine waiting for a decision because of regulatory paralysis from the previous administration. There was hardly a rubberstamp. There was never a decision. Frankly, all we are asking for is a decision one way or another, Mr. Speaker, yes or no, green light, red light. Don't just sit there in purgatory forever and not make a doggone decision. That is the problem we are trying to fix. With respect to the gentlewoman's concern about closed branches, we are concerned about the lack of branches. We are concerned about banking deserts. That is exactly why Republicans introduced a resolution to allow for more de novo charters. We want more banks, not less. We want more competition, not less. We want those new banks to form in those underserved communities, urban, rural, suburban, wherever they are. We need more. Mr. Speaker, my question to the gentlewoman, the ranking member, is: Why did she vote against that? If she is so concerned about no branches, not enough branches, banking deserts, why is she voting against making it easier for new banks to form in those places where there are no financial services? Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Haridopolos), who is a great leader on our committee and who will offer his wisdom on this subject.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as to our Democratic colleagues' concern that this legislation and allowing for healthy mergers to happen in the banking sector would somehow diminish financial services or that customer service would somehow be lost, it is actually the opposite. When you have healthy mergers among, especially, community banks or a small regional bank acquiring a community bank, that allows them to add scale. That allows them to invest in the very technology that provides the customers with better services, with better, more innovative financial services and products. Far from losing customer service, this is a way for smaller institutions, regional banks, to come together into combinations, invest in more technology, to lower costs, to help those customers to increase access to financial services in ways that they can better compete with the megabanks. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will address a couple of the arguments that were just made. I think I heard the ranking member say that what we are trying to do is let them do whatever they want to do. That is actually not at all the case. The merger review process is a very involved process. There is quite a bit of scrutiny that goes into approving these mergers. In fact, what we want to do here with the resolution disapproving of this is to actually force the agencies to make a decision one way or the other. The problem we have seen, especially in the previous administration, is not necessarily that they disapproved a merger. They just didn't make a decision. If it is in the interest of financial stability to reject a bank merger, then that very well could be a legitimate regulatory decision, but make the decision. That is what we are saying here: Make the decision. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman is concerned about layoffs and employees of banks losing their jobs, the surest way that you will have massive layoffs and workers losing their jobs is for a bank merger application to be presented to the agencies and have literally no decision because guess where the acquisition target employees are going to go. They are going to go away. They are not going to stay with the bank. What we are saying is: Give the merger applicant a decision one way or the other. That is the best way you can have worker retention in the banking sector. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Moore).

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his excellent comments. I think another important point that needs to be made in the context of this resolution of disapproval of the Biden-era OCC rule is what is actually happening in the marketplace. I think the arguments made on the other side of the aisle assume an antiquated market where the only competition that exists are banks, competing with banks. That is not the case anymore. We are living in 2025. In 2025, the advent of all kinds of nonbank financial services has to be taken into account when you look at the merger landscape in banking. We have fintechs. We have nonbanks. There are credit unions. There is farm credit. There are all kinds of payment systems, movement to stablecoins and the blockchain. Financial services look a whole lot different than it did even 25 years ago. Mr. Speaker, when you are doing an analysis of the propriety of a bank merger, you can't just look at whether or not this leads to some level of consolidation in the banking sector. You have to look at it in terms of competition across the financial services landscape. In order to achieve the scale, to provide the same level of services, to provide the same level of technological convenience, and to provide the same level of underwriting and access to capital that consumers are being accustomed to now in this very competitive landscape, healthy mergers are needed for banks to compete with all of the financial technology that is happening in the economic landscape. That is not being taken into consideration by my friends on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague from California just reminds me to make the point that economies of scale are not inherently bad. Economies of scale and big, large financial institutions serve our economy. Community banks serve our economy. Midsize banks serve our economy. Regional banks serve our economy. Super-regional banks serve our economy, and big banks serve our economy. They serve different parts of the economy. At the larger end, the globally and systemically important financial institutions make markets. They are part of why we have the deepest, most liquid, and most competitive capital markets on planet Earth. This is not a bad thing. This is a good thing. Those large institutions are capable of serving large, multinational corporations that make the United States a destination for capital flows in our country. They are a magnet for foreign direct investment. They help us with countering terrorism. They give us a global visibility that we wouldn't have if we didn't have large globally important financial institutions that were forward positioned in other continents that allowed us visibility into financial flows and helped our law enforcement and our intelligence agencies find bad actors. That is a good thing. That is not a bad thing. It is important, though, that we preserve the dynamism and the diversity of our banking sector. That is why we also want large regional banks, regional banks, midsize banks, and, yes, community banks and microbanks. We want it all. It is the diversity and heterogeneity of the banking sector that makes our system the best in the world. That is why we want healthy mergers. We want de novo charters to backfill, but we want healthy mergers so that we have a constantly dynamic and healthy banking system. Now, the gentlewoman cites this one particular case of fraud in one large bank, and she is right. It was a bad case, and it was properly punished by the regulators. She cites to a case of cross-selling and overly aggressive marketing and a sales goals program and compliance problems. It is true. There were, but it is not because there are healthy mergers in this country that that happened. That is not why that happened. That could have happened in a regional bank. That could have happened even in a smaller bank. It happened to happen in a larger bank, but guess what? There are a lot of other large banks in this country where they didn't have those problems. When there are problems, that is why we have regulators and bank examiners. They fix those problems to make sure that they never happen again. You know what can help prevent those problems from happening even more than regulators, even more than central planning from Washington? Mr. Speaker, it is competition and choice. That particular institution that the gentlewoman is talking about, maybe they didn't have enough competition. Maybe they didn't have enough competition, Mr. Speaker, because we had regulators that prevented healthy mergers to enter into their market space and actually compete and take customers who are unsatisfied with that cross-selling. The whole point here is that we want a dynamic marketplace so that we can create competition. That is the best form of consumer protection, not a regulator, not an examiner, not regulatory inaction, or regulatory indecision. That is not consumer protection, but healthy mergers that allow for greater competition of the big banks. That is the way to protect consumers. I will make one other point before I reserve, as well. When we say that large banks are not inherently bad, what we mean by that is that when you allow for a merger, let's say, of two regional banks, and you allow that scale, that economies of scale to take place, and where there are investments in technology, not only do you give the customers of that larger institution, that successor merged institution with greater resources to provide lower cost services, more technological advancements, but, yes, you allow them to invest in what? They invest in consumer protection. You allow them to make sure that people in their organization are not making mistakes with cross-selling, making sure that they are using the latest technology to ensure that everybody is getting the right deal and the best deal and the most financial inclusion possible given that particular customer's circumstances. Far from promoting problems, this resolution will actually help solve the problems. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example of where a merger that was recently approved certainly doesn't hurt consumers but helps consumers and creates more competition. The gentlewoman cites the approval of the Capital One-Discover merger. Do you know what that merger did? It created a third option, in addition to MasterCard and Visa, for consumers to access in terms of a payment network. That is not diminishing competition. That is creating more competition. It is more competition for Visa and more competition for MasterCard. Ask Visa and MasterCard. They will tell you. This is a very formidable competitor to MasterCard and Visa now that there is an approved merger between Capital One, a substantial credit card business, a substantial payment business, and Discover with their substantial network. You create a third option for consumers. That is procompetition, not anticompetition. I will make another point. This is not just about big banks. It is about small community banks. We are scrutinizing today the Biden OCC's regulation. What did that regulation do, Mr. Speaker? It eliminated expedited procedures for approval of what? It eliminated expedited procedures for approval of community bank mergers, small noncomplex mergers that would allow those community banks to serve those small communities better. That regulation eliminated that. Here is what the trade association of the smallest banks in America says about that Biden regulation. Here is what the small banks say about that regulation. ``ICBA strongly opposes the elimination of the expedited review and streamlined applications. . . . not every transaction is complex. For example, in instances where two community banks within the same market attempt to merge, and the merger does not pose significant financial stability, consumer protection, competition or safety, and soundness concerns, the OCC should treat the transaction as noncomplex and permit for review under streamlined procedures.'' It makes sense to me that we would have streamlined, expedited procedures so that we can make sure community banks can continue to compete. This is not about big banks. It is about small banks and the survival of small banks under the avalanche of red tape that came at them after Dodd-Frank, after the avalanche of competition from nonbanks and credit unions and fintechs and blockchain companies. We want these small banks to survive, to continue to serve their communities. This is the way they do it. Finally, I will make a point that hasn't really been discussed here today in this debate; that is, we should remember the lessons of Silicon Valley Bank. There was a very, very significant panic because of the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and there was a run on that bank. We don't want that to happen again. We don't want a panic. We don't want a run. We want to prevent bank failures, and the way to prevent bank failures is to allow strong banks to acquire weak banks. We want to make sure that a failing bank can be saved by a white knight. Delaying approvals of healthy mergers is very dangerous for financial stability. We need this legislation so that we never have a bad regulation that would prevent regulators from allowing expedited approval of mergers that help save the system. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, former Federal Reserve Governor and now-Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman, who talked about the procompetition benefits of healthy mergers, said: ``Reducing the efficiency of bank M&A can be a deterrent to healthy bank transactions. It can reduce the effectiveness of M&A activity that preserves the presence of community banks in underserved areas, prevent institutions from pursuing prudent growth strategies, and actually undermine competition by preventing firms from growing to a larger scale, effectively creating a `protected class' of larger institutions.'' Mr. Speaker, we had a hearing that was called when the ranking member was the chair. She called in all the CEOs of the biggest banks in the country. In this particular hearing, the gentlewoman from California also hauled in some of the CEOs of the regional banks, the big regional banks, in addition to the G-SIB Wall Street banks. I noticed that the CEO of a successor institution that was formed by the merger of two regional banks was sitting right next to the CEO of one of the largest banks on planet Earth, so I said to the CEO of one of the largest banks on planet Earth: This gentleman who is now the CEO of a big regional bank is sitting next to you. Can you tell me what a more formidable competitor to your big Wall Street bank is? Is it the original small regional bank, the other small regional bank, or is it the combination of those two regional banks that made a bigger regional bank? He said: Undoubtedly, it is the bigger regional bank that poses a bigger competitive threat to me, the big Wall Street bank. Not all mergers are bad. There are a lot of mergers that help create more competition. That is what we want. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, it provides better financial services and products and access to the American Dream for the American people. That is why we want to disapprove this bad regulation. That is why we want to make sure that mergers are allowed to allow for distressed banks to sell themselves instead of failing, thereby insulating the Deposit Insurance Fund from losses. This is to help financial stability, Mr. Speaker. I urge all of my colleagues, for the reasons that we have outlined today, to help us invalidate this bad regulation and to make sure that no regulator in the future can pass another bad regulation like this that would prevent healthy mergers. For goodness' sake, if you want dynamism and competition in a diverse banking system, support our agenda that not only allows for healthy mergers but also provides for regulatory tailoring so that we provide relief to small community banks so that they can compete, relief to the regional banks so that they can compete, and, for goodness sake, clear the way for de novo charters, new banks, to come into the system. I don't know, for the life of me, why my friends on the other side of the aisle who complain about big banks won't allow for healthy mergers to compete with them, won't allow for new banks to come into the system by overregulating the heck out of the sector, and won't allow there to be a dynamic, diverse banking system. Mr. Speaker, for these reasons and others, as I explained earlier, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the career of Mr. Bill Himpler, who resides in Virginia, but is a proud native son of Chicago, IL, a man of deep faith, a loving husband, father and grandfather, an attorney, former congressional tax counsel and legislative director, former legislative director at the Department of Housing and Urban Development in the Administration of George W. Bush, and most recently as the President and CEO of the American Financial Services Association, the national trade group representing the consumer credit industry. Bill is known to many of us in Congress, not only for his longstanding support of the American consumer's access to a wide variety of credit products, but his irrepressible passion and good humor in doing so. Where others might seek to use the politics of division to achieve then organization's goals, Bill has never played a zero-sum advocacy strategy. Bill's advocacy has focused on how access to consumer credit in its many forms provides real economic opportunity for consumers of all financial standings. In his meetings here on Capitol Hill and in testimony over the years before Congressional committees, he has stressed that the economic opportunity access to some form of credit provides is not simply a luxury for a few, but a civil right for all. In a similar way, while advocating responsible rules of the road for his industry, he is also a stalwart advocate for empowering consumers with the financial literacy tools they need to successfully build a strong and stable financial future. As a result of his leadership, he has made the American Financial Services Association a trusted voice for both the consumer credit industry, but the tens of millions of consumers they serve. After more than 40 years in Washington, Bill is retiring to enjoy well-earned time with his wife, Mary Sue, his children, Bill, Maggie, Jack and Ruth, his seven, with two more on the way, grandchildren, and his golf game. The American consumer may not know the name Bill Himpler, but they have benefited from his efforts over the past twenty years at AFSA, as have policy makers and regulators here in Washington and across the country. I thank him for his service and dedication and congratulate him on an outstanding career.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor an American hero and a true patriot, Mr Charles Ross of Nicholasville, Kentucky. Mr. Ross, a 96- year-old veteran, was a prisoner of war during the Korean War for three years. Charles Ross enlisted in the United States Army on February 13, 1947. Born on December 6, 1928, in Columbia, South Carolina, he was just 18 years old when he enlisted. He was inspired by soldiers who served in WWII, and he wanted some adventure in his life. After basic training at Fort McClellan in Alabama, he spent three years in post-WWII Germany with the 1st Infantry. When the Korean War broke out in 1950, Mr. Ross was deployed there with the 1st Provisional Battalion. He was then assigned to the 3rd Battalion of the 1st Cavalry Brigade. Soon after arriving in Korea was the Battle of Inchon, followed by the Battle of PyongYang, and the Battle of Unsan, which was long and treacherous. Mr. Ross' battalion of around 900 men was surrounded by 10 to 20,000 Chinese soldiers. After fighting the Chinese off for three days and nights, they ran out of food, water, and provisions. Many lives were lost. On the fourth day, the Chinese Army started shelling chemical rounds of white phosphorous. All those who were able to run did so, crossing the Nammyon River. Mr. Ross and a fellow soldier broke off from the crowd and hid. An older Korean civilian helped them find shelter in a cave and brought them water and broth. Leaving the cave, they were soon found and surrendered to the Chinese Army. They were taken to Camp 5 in Pyoktong in January of 1951. Prisoners in the camp experienced untreated wounds, disease, frozen ground, starvation, and many died. They were forced to work on the burial detail, which was horrendous. In August of 1951, Mr. Ross and other non-commissioned officers were taken to Camp 4, where conditions were somewhat improved. He was released from the POW camp on August 20, 1953, reunited with the American Army, and promoted to Master Sergeant. Mr. Ross' POW experience left him with life-long Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and painful neuropathy in his feet from the frigid Korean winters. He retired from the Army in 1970 as a Command Sergeant Major. Mr. Ross lives in Nicholasville, Kentucky with his daughter Barbara. He and his late wife Janet have three children and several grandchildren and great-grandchildren. He was recently celebrated by Rolling Thunder Chapter 5 for National Prisoner of War Day. Charles Ross is a true patriot, a great American, and an inspiration to us all. I am forever grateful to him and his fellow soldiers who sacrificed so much in service to our Nation. It is my honor to recognize his service before the United States Congress.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Calvary Baptist Church as they celebrate their 150th anniversary. Calvary Baptist Church is located in Lexington, Kentucky. On January 14, 1875, forty people stepped out in faith to start a new church in the growing city of Lexington, Kentucky. The church was first known as Second Baptist Church and J.M. Frost was called to serve as the first pastor. As the church membership grew, in 1906 the name was changed to Calvary Baptist Church and a new sanctuary was built at High Street and Rodes Avenue. Growth continued, and the current location, at High Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard, was built in 1962. Dr. Monty Stallins leads the congregation as the pastor today. Since Calvary Baptist's founding in 1875, the pastors have changed and the locations have changed, but the mission of the church has remained the same, to invite people into relationship with the Lord. Over the years, members have recognized the call to serve the needs of the community and the world. Significant highlights include organizing the establishment of Central Baptist Hospital, partnering with First United Methodist Church to open the High Street Neighborhood Center, organizing mission trips to Haiti, opening the Interfaith Counseling Center and Mission (Health) Lexington, organizing the Build a Bed Ministry, and establishing the Clothed by Grace clothing closet. The ministry of Calvary Baptist Church has touched thousands of lives in life changing ways over its century and a half history. As Calvary Baptist Church celebrates their 150th anniversary, it is my honor to lift up this faith community before the House of Representatives. I wish them many more years of faithful ministry serving God.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor an American hero and a true patriot, Mr. Vaughn P. Drake, Jr. of Lexington, Kentucky. Mr. Drake passed away on April 7, 2025, at the age of 106 and has been recognized as our Nation's oldest survivor of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Mr. Drake was born in Winchester, Kentucky on November 6, 1918. He attended the University of Kentucky's College of Engineering. At the age of 23, he was serving in the Army Corps of Engineers and was in charge of a temporary power plant in Hawaii. On December 7, 1941, he became a part of history as he witnessed Japanese planes attack Pearl Harbor, and the battle ensued. He was also involved in the strategic and significant Battle of Saipan in the Marianas. For his brave service in the United States Army, he received the Congressional Medal for the Veterans of Pearl Harbor, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the American Defense Medal with Foreign Service bar, the Asiatic-Pacific Medal with two battle stars, and the World War II Victory Medal. Following his military service, Mr. Drake returned home to Kentucky and married his wife, Lina. They were married for 65 years when she passed away in 2011. Mr. Drake is survived by his son, Sam W. Drake, as well as two grandsons and three great grandchildren. Mr. Drake began working as a registered professional engineer and had a distinguished career for over 50 years. He was a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, the National Society of Professional Engineers, and was a charter member and past president of the Bluegrass Chapter of the Kentucky Society of Professional Engineers. In 1979 he received the KSPE State Award for Outstanding Engineer in Industry. He was involved with the Boy Scouts of America and was a member of the Honorable Order of Kentucky Colonels, the University of Kentucky Alumni Association, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and a life member of the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association. He received the Mayor's Spirit of Lexington Award. Vaughn P. Drake, Jr. was a true patriot, a great American, and an inspiration to us all. I am forever grateful to him and other members of the Greatest Generation for sacrificing and fighting to preserve the freedoms that we hold dear. It is my honor to recognize his life and his service before the United States Congress.

Mr. BARR

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, Chairman Hill, for bringing this important resolution of disapproval to the House floor, nullifying the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's disastrous overdraft rule. Let me set the record straight, Mr. Speaker. This resolution of disapproval doesn't increase fees, as my friends on the other side of the aisle insinuate. In fact, what it does do is it invalidates a regulation that will take this critical lifeline away from many of my constituents. Indeed, for many families across this country, living paycheck to paycheck, overdraft services are a critical safety net. Without this service, necessities would become harder to obtain. Overdraft services are not a luxury. They are a lifeline. For my friends on the other side of the aisle to use incendiary language like ``shameful,'' I submit what is shameful is to take away this lifeline from our constituents. Consumers understand the costs associated with overdraft services, and they willingly opt in because they find value in the protection that it offers. They are not coerced. They make an informed decision, knowing that a small, predictable fee prevents far more severe consequences like a bounced check or late fees. It is a convenience that allows consumers to avoid the embarrassment of being turned down at the point of sale. Unfortunately, my Democrat colleagues refuse to recognize this basic truth, choosing instead to label overdraft products as predatory. Let me reiterate that point, Mr. Speaker. Consumers choose to use this service, and they opt into the service voluntarily. The first option under the new rule forces financial institutions to treat overdrafts as extensions of credit. This change would severely limit access to the product, especially for those who need it most. Financial institutions would have to underwrite each overdraft transaction, evaluating a borrower's ability to pay a relatively small amount. This would be both impractical and inefficient. The alternative proposed by the Bureau, a safe harbor charge cap of $5, would force many banks to exit this product altogether. Credit unions would also discontinue this service. This would price out the very consumers who rely on overdrafts the most. They use the word ``predatory.'' Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what is predatory. What is predatory is taking away this product from the American people and pushing them into actual nonbank predatory lenders and usurious products. As was mentioned earlier, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has already concluded that overdraft fee caps hamper, rather than foster, financial inclusion. The consequences of the rule have been studied, and it is evident that this cap would harm consumers by limiting their access to necessary financial services. Finally, this idea that smaller banks and credit unions are unaffected by the rule is simply wrong. While institutions with less than $10 billion in assets are purportedly excluded from the rule, they will still be forced to deal with this cap just to stay competitive. The truth is it is the big banks they are protecting. The big Wall Street banks can afford to go without these fees. It is the community banks in our neighborhoods and in our communities who can't afford to provide this product without the fees. Mr. Speaker, just in conclusion, this is a real-life testimonial about the value of these overdraft protections from a community bank in my district: We have a customer with two children and a husband in the military. As you know, things can be difficult when one parent is deployed and one parent is alone with children, trying to manage finances, school, after-school activities, and church. As the customer said, things can be overwhelming, even exclusive of her husband's deployment. This customer approached me in church with her head down, saying that she was having a tough time with things. Some expenses surprised her, and she was suddenly out of money for the month. She was okay, as she had groceries, gas, and her bills paid, until she got a flat tire on the way to a school function. She got the car to the tire shop.

Mr. BARR. Mr. Speaker, I will finish the story. The tire was irreparable. She had to buy a new tire for a couple of hundred dollars she didn't have. She was not able to keep up with her car. She had to buy the new tire. There was no choice. She ran her debit card, and it covered the tire. The family went home. She checked her account when she got home, wondering how it was paid for, when she didn't have the money in it. It was her overdraft that covered it. She thanked me that her community bank was there for her to cover her overdraft so she could keep moving without having to call for help. Mr. Speaker, needless to say, the banker was tremendously humbled that she was able to help this mother out due to the overdraft. They are there in time of need.