Paul Mitchell

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, on Roll Call No. 178, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 178.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 171 and 172, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on rollcall No. 171 and NAY on rollcall No. 172.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 167, I am not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 167.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I wasn't planning on speaking on this. It is an honor to speak after Mr. Hoyer. I heard Mr. Clyburn speak eloquently regarding the removal of statues, statues including that of former Chief Justice Taney, a statue honoring him for what we all agree was the most dreadful decision the Supreme Court has ever made in this country, not based upon the law but based upon his feelings that African Americans weren't people. I am speaking today not so much that it convinces anybody in this Chamber, but I am speaking about history, and I am speaking about my children, my children and my grandchildren, that they need to remember the history of this Nation. The history of this Nation is so fraught with racial division, with hatred, and the only way to overcome that is to recognize that, acknowledge it for what it is. Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution, and I support what Mr. Clyburn said: to remove statues such as that of Mr. Taney, to lawfully remove them--not tear them down, not destroy them--return them back to the States and places from which they came, and to study, to put them in the study of the history of this Nation, because it should not be lost. Tearing it down does not do justice to the history of this Nation and what our young people must understand. Mr. Speaker, what you have gone through in your life, Mr. Lewis did and others, we can't simply ignore it and say, because we tore down statues or we burn things, it is suddenly gone. No, we need to recognize those things as part of our history in order to move on beyond them. Because, as many have said, to not acknowledge, to recognize, to understand our history runs a very real risk of reliving it. And, my God, we can't continue to do that. Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution and support the removal of statues.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, it is unusual, I know, to have a Republican standing here in support of this amendment while a Republican from the Judiciary Committee opposes it, but like many Americans, I was concerned to see uniformed law enforcement who did not have agency insignia or names displayed on their uniforms during the protests in Washington, D.C., and elsewhere. I believe, like many Americans, that transparency and accountability for law enforcement are important values of the American justice system. Based on the recent protests, Ms. Houlahan came up with an amendment that I had some concerns about during the debate. She agreed in good faith to modify that to address those concerns. You see, my oldest son is a police officer. He had to conduct police work both in uniform one day and undercover the second day in the crowd, ensuring that things did not get out of control. I talked to Ms. Houlahan about that. I said we need to protect those people, because it is valid law enforcement to have undercover officers. This language did that. This language, in fact, addresses that and assures, if you are in uniform, if you are carrying a shield, if you are out there, you must identify what agency you are with and your name. Americans expect that. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I will say to the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, no one is asking about identifying antifa. We are asking about identifying people we expect to protect all of us and to conduct themselves in the appropriate manner in law enforcement. To do that, they must identify themselves, and we must know who they are. Anything short of that is not effective police work, and my son would tell you that if he were here today.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, let me respond to, actually, the ranking member of the committee I serve on. This is not about whether we identify the vehicle that law enforcement pulls up in; in fact, they often use unmarked vehicles. But when those law enforcement personnel climb out of the vehicle, we should identify who they are, what agency they are with. In fact, they should announce themselves, because that is what law enforcement does; not come out without identity, without who they are, what their jurisdiction is, be that in Washington, D.C., or in Portland, Oregon. They are not doing that. It is unacceptable. It is unacceptable in America. This was debated at great length in committee, and this is what many of us agreed to do. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize this just addresses appropriate identification of law enforcement personnel and vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the ranking member, as I was just getting rolling. It increases funding by 72 percent for transit funding. Meanwhile, we have COVID-19. Use of transit is declining. It is not entirely clear it will ever come back, but we will throw more money at it because that makes more sense. $2 of every $5 will be spent in this section of the bill on the Green New Deal. Forty percent of the additional money will be spent on the Green New Deal. I thought it was a transportation bill. Mess with me every time. Last but not least, it leaves rural America behind. Frankly, I will go back to the ditch. We have big ditches where I am from, very large culverts. And we are in one now because, for example, the majority creates the Rebuild Rural grant program that receives $250 million. Woo-hoo, there we go, a little bit of money for them. Meanwhile, there is a new program for electric charging stations that will largely benefit urban areas because we are going to put $1.7 billion into electric charging stations. That is not going to help out a whole lot in my district in rural America. It makes no sense that 71 percent of public lane mileage is in rural America, but the majority of this goes to urban America. If we are going to move America forward, Mr. Chairman, maybe we should just call it the moving urban America forward and the rest of you all can go back and handle it on your own because this bill doesn't do it. So I will ask one more time, I ask the committee--we sat through, what was it, Mr. Chairman, 26 hours of fun entertainment? I will ask one more time: Can we actually do something that this committee that I was proud of, which is a bipartisan effort to make transportation in America work for all Americans that we can afford and addresses the problems? And, yes, I will even accept the Green New Deal, if we talk about it on a bipartisan basis. If we talk about things we know make a difference. I will accept that. I don't deny that it exists, but it would be nice if we didn't throw dollars at everything and hope something works. So once more, please, a bipartisan effort, and I would be happy to support it.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I listened earlier today to the Democratic leader that I hold in great esteem, by the way, wax poetically about this bill before us now, wax poetically about how it was developed. I asked for a copy of it. The chairman has a copy in front of him there. In 3 weeks that massive document was suddenly put together. And he asks where is the President's bill? After all the time that both the Democratic leader as well as the chairman of this committee has been here, they know we don't need a bill from the President to move something forward that will work for America. We don't need to sit back and wait for somebody else. We are the legislative body. It is our bill. It should be our bill, not their bill, not the Republican bill, but our bill. Because change in America more often is achieved by a bipartisan effort on legislation. And believe it or not, over the last 4 years we have been here, we have actually achieved that a few times, and it is making change in America. The USMCA, the trade agreement finally replacing NAFTA, actually becomes official tomorrow finally. And that was a bipartisan effort with a lot of teeth, which I know, Mr. Speaker, you are aware of. That took quite an effort to achieve. But it also became a bipartisan effort to improve trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico finally. Is it perfect? Very little ever is, but you sure hope it is better than what we had, which I think we can all agree wasn't working very well. We achieved the term before that something called the FIRST STEP Act, which was criminal justice reform to finally revise sentencing in criminal justice at the Federal level after more than a decade of wrangling over that. And how was that achieved? By a bipartisan effort, not a 2,300-page bill developed solely by one side of the aisle brought forth in a matter of 10 days, and ta-da we have a magic answer that will solve all the problems in America or at least in terms of transportation and the Green New Deal. It was by bipartisan effort. Like the ranking member, I worked hard to get on committees that were bipartisan and would make a difference. I was thrilled to join the House Armed Services Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee because we had a history of working on a bipartisan basis, which to be honest with you, as of last week was tossed in the dumpster. You see, a colleague of mine, a Democrat and I, we put forth a bipartisan op-ed and policy proposal to fund a national infrastructure investment bank. That may not have been the best idea. But it was an idea to create an investment fund that would allow States to decide what they need to do, rather than have the bureaucrats in Washington or in this body, for God's sake, decide whether or not you need a bridge versus a railroad or broadband versus pipelines. We actually had a way, believe it or not, to fund it. Can you imagine that? We had a way to actually fund what it is we are talking about authorizing. A radical idea apparently. Never discussed. Never discussed at all. So instead of moving America forward, we are moving America into a ditch. We have a bill that started out at committee at $500 billion, and miraculously in less than a week we added $1 billion to it--a trillion; I am sorry, Bs and Ts still get me messed up--we added $1 trillion to it. It is now $1.5 trillion. By the way, with no plan to actually fund this thing. Estimates on the $500 billion was we would have to increase the gas tax. We would have to double it. That was just for the $500 billion. We would have to raise the diesel tax significantly, as well. That was just for that part, but it is not in this bill. It is not in this bill at all. So how do we pay for this? Maybe we just have more debt. That is what is suggested by the chairman. We will just get more debt because, hey, debt is great for America. Then we go and we look at what is in this bill. The bill increases transit funding by 72 percent.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, the Constitution requires physical presence to constitute a quorum. By circumventing over 200 years of rules, the proxy voting established by House Resolution 965 is unconstitutional. For that reason, I object to the vote on the grounds that a physical quorum is not present and I make a point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today disappointed and frustrated with this legislation and the dysfunction of this legislative body. Police work is vital, sometimes thankless, sometimes dangerous. My oldest son is a police officer, and we talked about these issues long before the events of the last several weeks. He recently had to put on a vest and police multiple times, protests where, Madam Speaker, I prayed to God they would not turn violent and someone would get hurt. So it is near and dear to my heart, as well as some Members on the other side of the aisle. It is not an economic issue. It is an issue of America, it is an issue of rights, and meaningful change is needed now. All across this country, our constituents, our neighbors, and, yes, my family, are begging us to step forward and lead, to come together for reform. We see these demonstrations in our cities and towns across this Nation, and we all agree reform is needed, yet yesterday in the Senate, constructive legislation proposed by Senator Scott was blocked by Democrats despite a commitment to full debate on the floor and amendments. We apparently don't want to legislate, do we? I have actively reached out for substantive discussion on this bill with the sponsor to offer input and support, to no avail. I spoke with Ms. Bass today, and she hopes maybe we will set up a work group, but not until we vote on this Democrat-developed bill, without the ability to even consider a single amendment. Heaven forbid we legislate. Senator Scott was correct in his speech yesterday: the issue is about not what action we take, but about who takes and can claim the action. My colleagues in the other party are so focused upon election messaging, they overlook some critical things. We have needed to address these issues for decades. Even when a Democrat was in the White House and the Democrats controlled both bodies of this legislature, nothing was done. This issue will not go away. I think we agree on that. It is staying. Lacking action, this issue will become more heated and divisive in our communities across this Nation. What do you say we all simply focus on doing our current jobs rather than worrying about the November election? What do you say, how about we actually legislate to achieve effective reform instead of messaging, because messaging right now is a disaster for this Nation? We should all in this body feel ashamed for taking up space and time when we are not solving the problem. God help us all.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, on Roll Call No. 105 the Previous Question on H. Res. 967, Roll Call No. 106 Agreeing on H. Res. 967, Roll Call No. 107 Agreeing on H. Res. 965, Roll Call No. 108 Motion to Recommit on H.R. 6800, and Roll Call No. 109 Passage of H.R. 6800, I am not recorded because I was absent. Had I been present, I would have voted: NAY on Roll Call No. 105; NAY on Roll Call No. 106; NAY on Roll Call No. 107; YEA on Roll Call No. 108; and NAY on Roll Call No. 109.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 266, which provides badly needed financial support for small businesses and hospitals. Our Nation continues to struggle with the health and economic impacts of COVID-19. But I must also comment on the function of Congress. We passed the CARES Act almost 30 days ago. Since then, the lights have been off here. Today, we vote for one crucial item and depart again. I will vote ``aye'' on the relief package, but I stress Congress must get back to work here in the Capitol. We all must resume our full duties and obligations to the Constitution and, most importantly, to the American people. We took an oath to preserve and protect both.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, our country faces a public health and economic challenge unlike any we have experienced in 100 years. We must protect the health of the American people while also ensuring our economy is able to bounce back as the coronavirus subsides. I urge at every opportunity that Congress assist Americans with income support while also providing a critical lifeline to businesses, especially small businesses. The CARES Act achieves those objectives through direct checks to American households, improved unemployment compensation, and federally backed loans to businesses. This bill is certainly not perfect. Rarely do we see perfect in this Chamber, and certainly not in these circumstances. However, we cannot delay; we cannot waiver. We must ensure this aid is delivered to the American people as soon as possible. The American people are looking to us to lead at this moment, and we must do so now, so I rise to support the CARES Act. I urge my colleagues to do the same and move this to the President's desk.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, if you are aware or my colleagues are aware that we are now over 15 resolutions expressing disapproval with some policy of the administration, more than one per month. It appears maybe we have a monthly checklist that we must do some resolution disapproving of the administration's action on a monthly basis. There is a point in time in this body we actually legislated. Imagine that. We considered an issue. We would have hearings. We would get experts in. We would have a bill. We would have regular order. We would amend the bill. And we would debate the policies. This is not legislation. H. Res. 826 has less impact and less importance than the tissue in the Cloakroom has on this body. I repeat that: less impact because, frankly, it is more useful. This is not. This is a media opportunity. This is a press release. At some time, the media will have people gathered together to bemoan the policy of the Trump administration. By the way, this is simply a guide to the States if they want to pursue waivers. States are choosing what is best for their citizens to serve them. As has been noted, there have been over 43 waivers approved by multiple States. So let me just say, I watched with great interest last evening the debate over expressing one's opinion and First Amendment rights in this body. With great interest, I watched them. So let me at this point in time express my opinion and exercise my First Amendment rights by simply saying----

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Graves of Louisiana, and all sponsors in support of this bill. As I indicated earlier, it has bipartisan support of the committee. Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4275. H.R. 4275 represents good governance to reauthorize the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Program. The Lake Pontchartrain Basin watershed is home to approximately 2.2 million people and covers 5,000 square miles. In June of last year when the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment held a hearing on many of these regional watershed programs, we invited Ms. Kristi Trail from the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation to testify on the need and importance of reauthorizing this program. During that hearing, we heard that Lake Pontchartrain and its surrounding watershed play an integral part of the wetland ecosystem of the Gulf Coast, contributing over $35 million to the local economy. As a result of the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation's work through this program, the lake is making a tremendous comeback by constructing multiple reefs for fish habitats, improving previously impaired water bodies, and growing their community outreach programs. I would like to thank Mr. Garret Graves, the sponsor of this bill, for putting this forward and for his support. I also would like to recognize the fact that we limit the EPA's administration to 5 percent. So the money goes to restore Lake Pontchartrain. For these reasons and numerous others, I urge support of this program and this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me close with this: This bill passed committee with strong bipartisan support. As my colleagues have noted, including Mrs. Walorski, recreational use of the Great Lakes is an important component of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. As I close, I would like to quote the immortal words of country superstar, Craig Morgan. It is a little unusual, but I think it is appropriate today. He said in a song: I'm meetin' my buddies out on the lake We're headed out to a special place we love That just a few folks know There's no signin' up, no monthly dues Take your Johnson, your Mercury or your Evinrude and fire it up Meet us out at party cove Come on in; the water's fine Just idle on over, and toss us a line Support reauthorization of the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez).

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), another colleague.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the balance of time on both sides, please.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), my colleague and the co-chair of the Great Lakes Task Force.