Virginia Foxx

Ms. FOXX

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

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I do have some other Members who wanted to come down and speak on the rule. They are tied up right now. If the gentleman is prepared to close, then I am prepared to close.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear our friends say they don't share the values of trying to save hardworking Americans' money from waste, fraud, and abuse, which are rampant in the Federal Government. The American people know that, Mr. Speaker. They know that in their hearts and in their minds. They understand it. They hear about it every day. It is curious to me that our Democratic colleagues do not want to make Medicaid more effective, that they don't want to help the people on Medicaid get better healthcare. How sad, Mr. Speaker, that that is the case. Mr. Speaker, this budget does not steal from the least of these. It does not. What it does do is everything it can to stop fraudsters, to stop bureaucratic waste, and to stop bad things from happening to those least because those in the government are not serving them well. Let's talk about these predictions. I started out by saying you are going to hear these horror stories. They said we are going to cut people's limbs off and watch them bleed to death. Let's look at the predictions that were made when President Donald Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act around Christmas 2017. Then- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi infamously predicted Armageddon for America--fear-mongering, plain and simple. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act led to historic growth and economic gains in this country. Larry Summers, a well-known Democrat, described progrowth forecasts as ``tooth fairies'' and predicted a long recession. That is fear- mongering. We got the opposite, a historic economic expansion under President Trump. Senator Chuck Schumer earned a ``mostly false'' rating for claiming companies were laying off workers due to tax reform. That is fear-mongering again. Yesterday, I had in my office some businesspeople, and they talked about what they did when the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed. They gave all of their employees a raise. We know about that, Mr. Speaker, those of us who were around. We saw that. There was lots of news about that because of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. As a result of that bill, we got historic reshoring and more jobs, as promised by President Trump. Then-Senator Harris, later Vice President Harris, claimed there would be a middle-class tax hike because average tax refunds were slightly down as tax season began. One newspaper deemed her claim ``misleading'' and--surprise, surprise--``nonsensical.'' History now reveals it to be false, and I would call it fear-mongering, the same we have been hearing on the floor today. In perhaps one of the greatest reveals, liberal Vox writer Matthew Yglesias, after admitting that facts show ``a clear majority got a tax cut,'' praised other liberals who ``did a really good job of convincing people that Trump raised their taxes.'' Fear-mongering revealed. Mr. Speaker, the fear-mongering needs to end, and the business of this House needs to continue. Again, despite what our colleagues on the left may claim, the American people know the truth. The Biden-Harris administration was a relentless assault on our economy, our national security, and our energy independence. Today in Rules, one of our colleagues said they are always left to clean up Republicans' mess. No. It is the Republicans who have to clean up the Democrats' mess. Under the Biden-Harris administration, they waged war on American energy, opened our borders to chaos, and drove inflation through the roof, all while families struggled to keep up. That is exactly why Americans were fired up at the ballot box last November. The American people had enough of Democratic dysfunction. This budget resolution is the beginning of delivering on President Trump's America First agenda. We are cutting waste, restoring our economy, delivering relief to working families, securing the border, and unleashing American energy like never before. This is more than a budget. It is a blueprint to take our country back, Mr. Speaker. We are done playing defense. It is time to lead, fight, and win, all for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 294 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

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

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 294, providing for consideration of four measures: S.J. Res. 18, disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Overdraft Lending: Very Large Financial Institutions''; S.J. Res. 28, disapproving the rule submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection relating to ``Defining Larger Participants of a Market for General-Use Digital Consumer Payment Applications''; H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025; and H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. House Resolution 294 provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 18 and S.J. Res. 28, both under closed rules, with 1 hour of general debate each, equally divided and controlled by the chair and rank minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their respective designees and provides each one motion to commit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit. Finally, the rule provides that H. Res. 293 is hereby adopted and provides that House Resolution 164 is laid on the table. The rule before us today provides Congress with yet another opportunity to stand for consumer choice and business innovation in our Nation. It provides an opportunity to defend the integrity of our elections, and it provides for a historic opportunity to rein in rogue judges and return public policy decisions to their rightful branches of government. H.R. 22, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, would amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of U.S. citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office. The only people who should vote in American elections are American citizens. There should be no debate or question about that. The SAVE Act adds additional layers of protection to elections right here in our own country. It is an opportunity worthy of bipartisan support. H.R. 1526, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, would limit the authority of district judges to provide sweeping injunctive relief on a nationwide or exceedingly broad scale. As of late, we have certainly seen a slew of rulings by rogue judges that surpass their own constitutional authority. Americans are rightfully concerned about this very issue. Let me be clear. This is judicial warfare in the flesh. Without question, exceeding constitutional mandates as a matter of judicial philosophy does nothing more than blight justice itself. S.J. Res. 18, a Congressional Review Act resolution, would overturn a midnight rule issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, CFPB, that undercuts the ability of lower-income Americans to access liquidity. To put it very simply, this CFPB's rule hurts the very consumers that it purports to protect. One of the likely outcomes of this rule being fully implemented would be low-income Americans being expelled from the financial system entirely due to lack of overdraft protection. It is time that we add this midnight rule to the burn pile. S.J. Res. 28, another Congressional Review Act resolution, would overturn another CFPB rule that unjustly shackles private-sector companies that operate within the digital asset marketplace. This rule is billed as a ``consumer protection'' mechanism, but what it really does is misclassifies an entire segment of digital products with the aim of regulating them straight into the ground. The CFPB overstepped its regulatory authority in its pursuit of subjugating the American economy in the name of consumer protection. This is another misguided rule that we must render null and void. Mr. Speaker, before I reserve, I want to take a moment to recognize the good faith efforts of Speaker Johnson in helping maintain a strong family-centric posture here in the people's House. Leading from the front and building consensus are not always easy endeavors. All of us understand this to be true. However, when done in the right ways and for the right reasons, like what the Speaker has done, we get positive resolutions. It is obvious that we have a critical mass of Members on what I consider an existential question for this body and that the related discharge effort derailed our agenda for a short time. However, we are back at our post, and our objective right here and now is to move forward. At the end of the day, our eyes must remain affixed to our very own North Star. Our North Star is governance, Mr. Speaker. Deviating from governing does not serve the American people, nor does it make good on the mandate they entrusted us with. The compromise agreement of dead pairing that was formulated and led by the Speaker and others is grounded in existing precedents, practices, and, ultimately, common sense. This is a viable pathway forward that meets two critical imperatives. It allows the clockwork and business of this body to remain unabated while extending due deference to our own majority's own governing principles. It is not the prerogative of this Republican majority now, nor will it ever be, to use tools of the minority to secure legislative victories. Republicans are the ones manning the helm here, and we must act like it. In addition, I will add that I firmly believe, as do many others, that Speaker Johnson's work in addressing the concerns raised last week and taking sizable steps to further intertwine rock-solid family values into the fabric of this House are very commendable. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the solution we are going to vote on today to allow mothers and fathers to continue to represent their constituents and to be able to cast their votes is a great solution. It is one that existed in this Congress before. It is a tried and true method. It broadens the ability of people to vote when they cannot be here to vote. We have had situations where we have had people rolled in on gurneys to be able to vote. Mr. Speaker, this is a much fairer way to do this in the way that we are doing it now. I also remind my colleagues who are speaking against or saying we are not dealing with the tariffs issue is that former Speaker Pelosi, Senator Schumer, and other Democrats railed against Chinese tariffs years ago but did nothing about them. They even supported President Biden's preserving of the tariffs from the Chinese most recently, and they said nothing about it here. President Trump is doing something about the tariffs. He is responding in ways that will strengthen the international economic position of the United States and protect American workers. He is showing leadership where the Democrats have shown none. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to be ashamed of. We are here solving problems for the American people every day. We are responding to what we were asked to do in the last election. I just point out to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that Republicans had a majority in the 118th Congress, the most recent Congress. We are now in the 119th Congress. We deemed only two items that were passed in the Committee on Rules. In the 117th Congress, when the Democrats controlled the Congress, they deemed 38 different items as passed in the Committee on Rules. There is an old saying, Mr. Speaker: ``Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are not afraid to debate tariffs, but we have four bills to debate here today. That is the business that we need to be dealing with. I will point out to my friends, again, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The Democrats love to claim foul on Republicans shutting off national emergencies, but perhaps they should reconsider given their own record when it comes to tolling day counts. They want to claim that Republicans are stopping time, but perhaps they forget just a few short years ago, in the Democrat-controlled 117th Congress, their own House rules package, H. Res. 8, conveniently stopped time for both legislative and calendar days regarding a myriad of processes. Let me read, Mr. Speaker, from their rules: ``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution, 50 U.S.C. 1546. ``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not constitute a legislative day for purposes of clause 7 of Rule XIII. ``Each day during the period addressed by paragraph (1) shall not constitute a calendar or legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of Rule XII.'' Now, what is this, the pot calling the kettle black? I am just not sure of that. I do think it is important, though, to remind our colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this happened. Mr. McGovern wants the country to know what is going on here. We want the country to know what is going on here, too. Let me say that this is a package that all four minority members of our committee voted in favor of, by the way. These manipulations were maintained for nearly 18 months in subsequent rules with continued support by the committee's minority counterparts. Similarly, when it comes to the National Emergencies Act, in a rule they permanently blocked votes terminating the COVID national emergency, despite Mr. Gosar introducing two separate disapproval resolutions. Mr. Speaker, be careful what you accuse us of because we have the facts and the record on our side. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, the Reading Clerk told us what we were here to do today. In my opening remarks, I read out what it is we are here to do today. We have a rule, and then we are going to have four bills to vote on. That is what we are here for. Our Democratic colleagues are desperate. They do not want to talk about this rule and what it does or the underlying bills. They want us to try to look at shiny objects over here, Mr. Speaker, that have nothing to do with what we are here to do today. What Republicans want to do is focus on what we are here to do today. We could talk about tariffs sometime, yes. We are happy to do that, but let's talk about what we have to do here. The Democrats don't want to talk about these because they correct issues that the Biden administration did wrong, these midnight rules of the CFPB. They don't want to talk about the rogue judges who have been overruled by the Supreme Court. They don't want to talk about what is happening here and now. They want to try to distract the American people with other issues. Mr. Speaker, let's deal with the issues at hand. Let's focus on those, do our job as Members of Congress, and get on with our business today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am going to take a little time to address the importance of the No Rogue Rulings Act and why the American people are demanding action against this unchecked abuse of nationwide injunctions. The fact is activist liberal judges have been utilizing nationwide injunctions in an unprecedented fashion. There have been 17 identified cases in which Federal courts issued nationwide injunctions between January 20, 2025, and March 27, 2025, against the Trump administration. Compare this to the 19 injunctions issued during the entire Obama Presidency, 8 years, Mr. Speaker. Fifty-five such injunctions were issued against the first Trump administration, 4 years, Mr. Speaker. If we look back to the Presidency of George W. Bush, only 12 nationwide injunctions were issued in 8 years. Some estimate that only 27 nationwide injunctions were issued in the 20th century. This exponential increase demands action. Nationwide injunctions frequently extend far beyond the immediate parties in a lawsuit, affecting entire populations and jurisdictions not involved in the original dispute. These overreaching rulings create significant uncertainty about Federal policies, drain taxpayer resources, and embolden unelected judges to subvert the will of the American people by thwarting the democratically elected President and Congress. Article III authorizes Congress to determine what types of cases inferior courts have jurisdiction to review. In some past cases, Congress has exercised this power by stripping Federal courts of jurisdiction to hear certain classes of cases, but that drastic action is avoided in this legislation. Instead, it takes a very measured approach. The bill would curtail the scope of injunctive relief but still allow for nationwide injunction under the appropriate circumstances. Injunctions would still be permitted. What won't be permitted is having an activist judge from a liberal enclave in the country impose a decision that goes far beyond the subject presented before him or her in the courtroom. The American people shouldn't be robbed of exercising their policy preferences by judicial extremism, and it would apply evenly to future Democratic and Republican administrations alike. The policies being put forth by the Trump administration are novel, creative, and bold. That is what the American people expected when they voted for President Trump. Just because a policy is untested or unprecedented doesn't mean it is illegal. Democrats may impugn President Trump all they want, but these fundamental constitutional concerns are best settled at the appellate level. This legislation does nothing to affect the proper avenues for constitutional challenges. Congress has always reserved this power to bring order to the judicial branch. We simply want to impose some order on the chaotic episodes unfolding in our courts. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I have to respond about the fact that we are denying new mothers and prospective mothers the opportunity to vote with this legislation. That is just not true. It is going to need to be refuted over and over again. What we have done is accommodate not only prospective and new mothers but we have also accommodated other Members who might need that accommodation. Let me be clear about that. That is absolutely true. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans remain laser focused on governing and advancing legislation that addresses pertinent issues across the Nation. Our foot is placed firmly upon the gas pedal of solving problems the American people want us to solve. The four pieces of legislation that will be considered under this rule are part of our governing efforts and are in alignment with the mandate that Americans gave us last November. Shielding consumer choice, protecting consumer choice, and combating foreign influence within higher education in America are issues that Americans care about. We have heard their concerns, and we are addressing them yet again this week. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the gentleman from Virginia in supporting this important rule. The rule would ensure the debate of important, commonsense legislation. This includes additional CRAs to protect consumer choice and the ability of American businesses to continue to innovate. It also provides for the consideration of the SAVE Act, legislation that fixes a broken provision of law by closing the loopholes that allow noncitizen voter registration and to enhance election security, minimizes the risk of foreign interference in U.S. elections, and restores Americans' confidence in U.S. elections. It also includes important legislation by Mr. Issa to provide for a commonsense approach in limiting the exponential spread of nationwide injunctions. These nationwide injunctions, when combined with forum shopping by activists, are circumventing the will of the public by turning courts into public policy determinants, completely upending our constitutional framework. I would like to briefly echo my earlier remarks at the Rules Committee this morning. I am proud to support the provision in the rule that safeguards this Chamber from a take-it-or-leave-it, nonamenable approach to authorize proxy voting. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, ``congress'' is defined as the act of ``coming together and meeting.'' I have never voted by proxy because I believe it undermines the fabric of that sacred act of convening. I know there is a laptop class in America that seems to operate increasingly in a virtual space, but that is simply not a fact of life for most American workers, and I believe Congress should live by that standard. Our Nation's construction workers can't build by proxy. Our Nation's police can't keep the streets safe by proxy. Teachers can't educate our students through the act of proxy. Doctors and nurses cannot treat the sick by proxy. Let's not forget how dependent we were on service workers and delivery employees to get us the goods we needed during COVID. Where would we have been if they decided to ``proxy'' their responsibilities? I understand that some of my colleagues are pinning their hopes on the fact that things will go according to plan, that proxy voting can be limited to select classes, and that those in authority can be trusted to enforce the rules. However, in the course of human events, things rarely ever go according to plan. This isn't theoretical. The Democrats implemented proxy voting during COVID, and it was a disaster. We had one Member who was submitting his proxy letter so he could moonlight a second job. We simply cannot throw this important decision to chance. It will take only slight reconfiguration of the deck chairs in this body to put Democrats back in charge and put us on a path to proxy voting without limitation. Put simply, Members of Congress need to show up for work. I support this rule and urge my colleagues to support it on the floor.

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 242, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of legislation: H.R. 1048, H.J. Res. 24, and H.J. Res. 75. The rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 24 and H.J. Res. 75 under closed rules. The rule provides each with 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or their designees. Additionally, the rule provides each a motion to recommit. Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1048 under a structured rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divide and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Workforce or their designees. The rule also provides for one motion to recommit. The rule before us today provides Congress with another opportunity to take a stand for consumer choice in America and take a stand against our Nation's foreign adversaries who continue to infiltrate colleges and universities across the Nation. The DETERRENT Act, one of the bills considered under this rule, offers a necessary injection of transparency, accountability, and clarity to foreign gift reporting requirements for colleges and universities. It offers legislative prescriptions that are long overdue. Under current law, section 117 of the Higher Education Act, colleges and universities must adhere to reporting requirements related to foreign donations. However, many fail to do so because of how weak the current law actually is. A 2019 Senate report found that up to 70 percent of colleges and universities fail to comply with reporting requirements outlined in section 117 of the Higher Education Act. You heard that right. Up to 70 percent of colleges and universities fail to comply. The DETERRENT Act updates section 117 to provide the very clarity and guidance that colleges and universities need to ensure they properly disclose foreign sources of funding and remain in compliance. It also adds a set of razor-sharp teeth to current law to hold colleges and universities accountable for failing to comply with section 117. Again, the DETERRENT Act offers legislative prescriptions that are long overdue. The other two pieces of legislation under consideration via today's rule are two separate Congressional Review Act resolutions: H.J. Res. 24 and H.J. Res. 75. These two CRAs will strike down separate rules from the Department of Energy that were finalized under the Biden administration. H.J. Res. 24 overturns a wrongheaded midnight rule from the Department of Energy relating to conservation standards for walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. The Department of Energy issued this final rule a mere 2 days before Christmas last year. This is yet another gift from the Biden administration that nobody asked for. This midnight rule piles on additional costs to the shoulders of Main Street businesses, while at the very same time takes a hatchet to consumer choice. H.J. Res. 75 will overturn yet another wrongheaded rule from the Department of Energy related to conservation standards for commercial refrigerators, freezers, and refrigerator-freezers. Like the previous rule from the Department of Energy that was just discussed, this rule is yet another example of the regulatory barrage that the Biden administration launched against Main Street as well as consumers. Thankfully, the regulatory warfare of the past 4 years is over. Republicans are back in charge. Mr. Speaker, regulating this country into the ground benefits absolutely no one. It does not benefit Americans and their families. It does not benefit free enterprise and entrepreneurs. It does not benefit small businesses. Nobody wins when the Federal Government goes hog wild with regulations. These two CRAs that the House will consider under this rule will help us break out the shovels and bury the Department of Energy's rules in the grave. They won't be missed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I spent time last week in my district, too, talking to people. I spend time every weekend talking to the people in my district. Do you know what they complain about the most? Unnecessary rules and regulations. I met today with folks from the homebuilding industry. They can document that 25 percent of the rules related to homebuilding are unnecessary and drive up the costs of doing business for homes. We need new homes everywhere. My colleagues are trying to make it look like what we are doing is frivolous. Mr. Speaker, this is far from frivolous. We in Congress are taking back our authority from unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats who, in the dark of night, write unnecessary rules and regulations that burden the American people and drive up the cost of business and drive up the cost of products. It is important for us to have further discussion on this critical Congressional Review Act that we are operating under. The Congressional Review Act agenda as a whole is important. My Democratic colleagues are falling into a repeated trap of copying and pasting comments these days. It is true of remarks for rule debate, as well. Every week, they come before this body to complain that we are undoing this or that regulation and that our collective time could be better spent elsewhere. Well, Republicans beg to differ. The Congressional Review Act provides the American people the greatest possible say over the endless tide of regulations that always stem from Democratic administrations, and it is one of the greatest keepers of Congress' Article I authority. It is also upsetting in many ways that the Democrats complain we are doing these individual rules when they opposed the Midnight Rules Relief Act, where we could have taken care of these all in one fell swoop. Let's not forget it was a Democrat, President Clinton, who signed the Congressional Review Act into law on a bipartisan basis, but our colleagues have obviously fallen far from those past overtures of consensus and common sense. Republicans and President Trump are constantly emphasizing common sense, which is not very common from the other side of the aisle. Many Members of Congress provide lipservice to excessive rules and regulations, but the Congressional Review Act provides Congress the ability to put our money where our mouth is. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has tabulated that Federal regulations impose a cost of $1.9 trillion on the economy. This averages out to more than $14,000 imposed on every American household, a hidden regulatory tax that is eating up American paychecks. The amount of rules far exceeds statutes by Congress. In 2022 alone, there were more than 3,100 rules issued by agencies compared to 247 laws passed by Congress. Yet, despite these figures, my Democratic colleagues can't seem to muster the courage to find one regulation that they believe is worthy of repeal. The fact is that we have a very limited window under the Congressional Review Act to expunge these harmful rules, again, written by unnamed, unaccountable bureaucrats. These rules continue to drive up costs for American families and take away consumer choices. I am so glad that we are taking up these CRA resolutions, ones that would protect consumer choice and competitive prices for freezers, refrigerators, and walk-in coolers. To my colleagues on the other side, these may seem like small issues to you, but driving up the cost of appliances is a regressive approach that will hurt low-and middle-income Americans the most. Regulating every possible square inch of the economy in the name of your zealous green radicalism may give the coastal elites a sense of accomplishment, but it is doing real harm to Americans. When the Congressional Review Act window is completed, we are going to be tabulating the cost of these regulations, as well as the votes to repeal them. It may seem like a little bit of cost here and there, but wait until you see the cumulative price. I hope my colleagues can heed the warning, but if the past is prologue, I won't be holding my breath. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 242 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

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

Ms. FOXX

Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Cadet Lieutenant Colonel Mikhail Karnaukh who was named as a recipient of the General Ira C. Eaker Award. This award is the second most prestigious honor in the Civil Air Patrol Cadet Program. Fewer than 1 percent of cadets are selected to receive it. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for those in the Civil Air Patrol. Their selfless commitment to duty and country deserves the highest praise from their elected leaders. We congratulate Mikhail on this special accomplishment. He has earned it. I very much look forward to hearing more about his progress and accomplishments in the coming months and years. May God continue to bless him and his family.