Jay Obernolte

Mr. OBERNOLTE

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Madam Speaker, infrastructure is a bipartisan issue. We all agree that one of the primary functions of government is to provide for the people collectively what they are unable to individually provide for themselves. I am talking about things like highways and roads and dams and harbors and airports. Things that represent long-term investments in the future of our country. Unfortunately, the infrastructure package we are currently considering only devotes 12 percent of the over $2 trillion of spending to infrastructure projects like those. To give you some egregious examples, the proposed infrastructure package devotes substantially more money to subsidizing the purchase of electric vehicles than it does to building the roads and the highways that those vehicles would drive on. The proposed infrastructure package devotes over ten times as much money to expansion of Medicaid than it does to the construction of water infrastructure, of dams and of airports put together. It is not to say that these other projects are without merit, but the problem is that almost every dollar of this spending contributes to our national debt. That means that we need to consider only the projects that represent a true, long-term investment in our country. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pare this package down to the projects that accomplish exactly that.

Mr. OBERNOLTE

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Madam Speaker, I fear that the recent actions by the administration to end energy development on Federal land will come at an extremely high cost to the people of the United States, and that cost will be borne disproportionately by the segment of our population who can least afford to pay it. As an example, I offer my home State of California, which, according to the United States Census Bureau, has the highest rate of poverty of any State in the country. That poverty rate is driven in no small part by the extremely high cost of energy in California. To take those misguided policies and extend them to the rest of the country would be an abdication of our responsibility to protect the most vulnerable segment of our population, the poor and the working poor, on whose backs the burden of higher energy costs will be felt most keenly.

Mr. OBERNOLTE

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 862, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.

Mr. OBERNOLTE

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Speaker, I fear that H.R. 842 is going to have serious long-term consequences for entrepreneurialism here in America. Mr. Speaker, I started a company 30 years ago out of my college dorm room at Caltech, and I grew it the way that most small businesses are grown in America. I grew it organically. That means that when I had a little bit more business than I, myself, could do, I contracted that business out to other people who could do that business for me. Mr. Speaker, under this bill, that practice will be illegal because it violates the so-called B pillar of the bill that prohibits any contracting that is related to the core business that a company engages. Mr. Speaker, if H.R. 842 had been the law of the land, I would not have been able to start my company, and the hundreds of jobs that we have created would not have been created here. But they will be created elsewhere, in other countries, with more sane and less restrictive laws. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 842.

Mr. OBERNOLTE

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 803. This bill, while well intentioned, will unfortunately result in over a million acres being subjected to less efficient forestry management services and less fuel reduction. I represent the State of California, which, last year, experienced the worst fire season in recorded State history. Over 4 million acres of State land was burned last year. The year before that, we had the destructive and catastrophic Camp Fire that totally destroyed the town of Paradise, almost 100 lives lost, almost 20,000 structures destroyed. I had the unfortunate experience of walking through that town and witnessing that devastation, and it was catastrophic. To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I have read the ``Wilderness Management Manual,'' and I direct their attention to the BLM manual for the management of wilderness areas that says that ``fuels reduction is only allowed in very rare circumstances.'' This will result in more fire damage throughout the Western United States. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. OBERNOLTE

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Speaker, the House Budget Committee was constituted in 1974, and since then, not a single budget resolution has passed out of this Chamber without hearings and reasoned debate, until today. Should H. Con. Res. 11 pass, it will be the first budget resolution in almost 50 years to pass this Chamber without a single hearing, without a single vote, without a single witness. We are being told that the reason for this is the need for quick action in response to additional stimulus and relief for the coronavirus crisis. But Mr. Speaker, I have read this resolution. It is 55 pages. I can't find a single item in this resolution related to the coronavirus crisis. Now we are being told that might be true. You see, this is just a shell that we pass this to the Senate, which triggers a lengthy and complex process of budget reconciliation. But, Mr. Speaker, if our intent is to pass quick relief, and I think it should be, we could do that today. This Chamber has passed in the last 12 months almost $4 trillion of relief. Mr. Speaker, of that, over 25 percent, over $1 trillion, remains unspent. We could fix that today. We could fix that now, instead of relying on this lengthy and complex process of budget reconciliation. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious topic. It deserves serious consideration, and not the violation of almost 50 years of protocol and procedure in this Chamber. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. OBERNOLTE

Mr. OBERNOLTE. Madam Speaker, although I share the concerns that have been raised about the MTR, I would like to speak on an aspect of this rules package that I find equally troubling, and that is the provision that would upend nearly 30 years of House tradition in exempting any legislation that can be tied in any way to either response to climate change or response to the coronavirus crisis from the requirements of paygo--in other words, the requirement that we consider how to pay for solutions to these problems in addition to how we solve these problems. Now, admittedly, climate change and coronavirus are serious issues, but it would be irresponsible to, when debating these issues, not consider their effects on the national debt and the budget deficit, which are also very serious issues. In fact, the CBO says that for the first time, last year, since World War II, our national debt exceeded 100 percent of our gross domestic product. To fail to consider solutions that we debate in this Chamber, the effects of those solutions on those also serious problems, would be an abdication of our responsibility to our constituents. I urge a ``no'' vote.