Guy Reschenthaler

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

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

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

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the Laurel Hill Presbyterian Church and congratulate its congregation for 250 years of service to God and their community in southwestern Pennsylvania. The Laurel Hill Presbyterian Church was built in 1772 by Scotch-Irish immigrants, and the original log structure was the first Presbyterian Church west of the Allegheny Mountains. The church was rebuilt in 1782, 1852, and 1898 as the congregation grew. Where the church once featured beeswax-coated windows, its sanctuary is now home to 110-year-old English stained-glass windows and an ornate chimney. In 2012, Pittsburgh's Heinz History Center featured the Laurel Hill Presbyterian Church for its profound influence on southwestern Pennsylvania. During the 19th and 20th centuries, the church funded the Laurel Hill Academy. William A. Clark attended this private school and later became a United States Senator from Montana. The church's cemetery serves as a testament to the history of the region and our Nation. The 7-acre burial ground is the final resting place for veterans of the French and Indian War, with several graves belonging to Native Americans. Other headstones mark the resting places of those who joined the fight for independence during the American Revolution. The Laurel Hill Cemetery is also home to Americans who fought to preserve our Union during the Civil War. The headstones of these veterans serve as a reminder of the struggles that strengthened our great Nation. Madam Speaker, the story of the Laurel Hill Presbyterian Church is uniquely American. The church has stood as a testament to its faith for 250 years, and I look forward to what the next chapter has in store for its congregation and community.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member for the time. Mr. Speaker, 61 percent of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck, yet here we are today, considering another reckless tax-and-spend bill that doubles down on the same failed economic policies that brought us to the current situation in the first place. Under Democrats' one-party rule, inflation has increased nearly 550 percent. Let me repeat that. Inflation has increased nearly 550 percent. Americans are spending over $2,000 more a year on gas. Our economy, despite the new definition, is actually in a recession. Despite what the majority claims, this bill will do nothing to reduce the record-high inflation that is forcing Americans to pay more for just about everything. But just don't take my word for it. Analysis from the Wharton School found this bill will actually increase inflation through 2024. This bill will also increase taxes on individuals earning under $400,000 a year while funneling taxpayer dollars to the wealthiest Americans. Under this bill, coastal elites, members from the ruling class, will receive $7,500 to buy electric vehicles while everyday Americans will have to pay more at the pump thanks to $12 billion in taxes on American energy producers. Unsurprisingly, this legislation is stuffed full of socialist Big Government handouts, including more than $400 billion for the radical, dangerous Green New Deal policies. It also provides the IRS with $80 billion for 87,000 new agents to apparently audit just 700 billionaires. The IRS doesn't need 87,000 agents to audit the rich; they need 87,000 agents to harass the working class and pay for their far-left handouts. Ultimately, this bill will push our Nation deeper into recession and make life even more unaffordable for American families. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, here to explain my amendment is my good friend, a senior member of the House Committee on Financial Services and the sponsor of this bill, Congressman French Hill of Arkansas. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I just want to, for the record, say there is nothing before us in the rule that has anything to do with any kind of assault weapons ban or policing. This is simply a rule that would waive the 24- hour requirement. Look, to be candid, the Democrats have now opened the door for Republicans to use this in the future to push forward our agenda, which is going to protect the rights and liberties of individual people. I would like to take this time to point out the hypocrisy and the irony I see coming from across the aisle. Let me just talk about that. Madam Speaker, 9 days is all it took before the Speaker reinstated her authoritarian COVID lockdown, proving once again that House Democrats are unable to govern unless they stack the deck. I would also remind my good friend that he consistently referred to these tactics as ``martial law'' during his time in the minority. If I can just quote the chair on same-day authority during the 109th Congress: ``My problem is with significant pieces of legislation, some legislation which may not have even been heard by committees of jurisdiction, which may not have been reported out of committees of jurisdiction, bills that will come before us that the House has never even considered, things that we will not have an opportunity to be able to read before we vote on them.'' That was in the 109th Congress. Where is the outrage now? Madam Speaker, for over 790 days, the Speaker used COVID-19 as a weapon to deny the Republicans the ability to advocate on behalf of millions of Americans that they represent. Just last week, it looked like we were finally returning to regular order. Now, it is more of the same tricks and tactics. The blanket same-day rule before us this morning allows House Democrats to ram through their radical agenda, an agenda that does nothing to address the serious problems the American people are facing. What are those problems? Under the Biden administration, our Nation has careened from one crisis to the next. It has been absolute chaos. Right now, families across the country are facing 40-year high inflation that is expected to cost the average American household an extra $6,000 a year. Yesterday, we were told that we are officially in a recession when the GDP fell for a second quarter in a row. Although the Biden administration is attempting to deflect blame by referring to this latest economic disaster as a ``transition period,'' the American people know that we are in a recession and facing hard times to come because of the radical policies of the left. It is only going to get worse with the recently announced build back broke deal, which will raise taxes on Americans. It will try to socialize American healthcare, and it will try to implement the radical Green New Deal policies that have led to this energy crisis in the first place. Madam Speaker, this is no way to run the people's House, but I want it noted that the door is now open. I find it absolutely hypocritical that there was outrage against us when Republicans used the same tactic but now it is okay when the Democrats want to do it. I am looking forward to the day when power returns to the Republicans, and we will see if there is outrage at that point. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentleman also quoted himself. You can tell how I am handling this debate because I don't want to be quoted in the future when the shoe is on the other foot. But I will point out the hypocrisy from my friends on the other side of the aisle that their outrage is obviously selective of who is waiving the rule and who is not. Look, we can talk about procedure all day here. That is not going to fix the real problems that are facing the American people. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, inflation is the top problem reported by businesses. This is the highest inflation we have had since 1980, literally the highest inflation in my lifetime. Instead of working to lower costs for businesses and workers, the SEC proposed burdensome new rules requiring businesses to disclose extensive climate-related data and additional ``climate risks.'' Setting climate policy is the responsibility of Congress, not unelected career bureaucrats who are absolutely unaccountable to the American people. That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 8589 that would prohibit the SEC's woke climate rule from moving forward. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want the Record to reflect that I am not outraged about this rule. I just was simply, at the beginning of my remarks, my opening statement, pointing out the hypocrisy from my friends across the other side of the aisle who had this selective outrage when we waived the 24- hour requirement. But it is okay when they do it. And again, I am almost gleefully looking forward to the opportunity when we are in the majority for myself to help the then Chairman Cole of the Rules Committee do the same thing; and we will see what kind of hypocrisy comes from the other side of the aisle and how they will then have outrage when we do it. But I am not outraged about this. I think that if we are going to move forward today, we should defeat the previous question. That is what I am passionate about, and that is what my friends that have spoken here today are passionate about, because they want to run a bill, authored by my good friend from Arkansas, that would actually help the economic crisis; that would actually help fight inflation. So, please don't confuse passion for helping the American people out of this financial problem with outrage. There is no outrage on this side of the aisle. But to explain more, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), my good friend, and a rising star of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it is quite remarkable that the gentleman is now telling us that this is about gun-related bills, because 14 hours ago we had questions in the Rules Committee. Those questions went unasked because the minority is unsure. You know who was unsure when they were in the minority? My good friend. Let me quote him again. When the Republicans tried to waive the 24-hour requirement, my good friend said: ``Once again, we are here on the floor debating a martial law rule that also makes the suspension day. Here we are, once again, unsure of what we will be considering today, tonight, or tomorrow.'' So last night, at 7 P.M., my good friend, ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Cole, asked a series of questions because we wanted to get some light shed on it. He asked, what would this rule specifically be used for? The majority said they didn't know. They were unsure. He asked if this were to be related to gun-related bills, and if those bills would be changed. The majority said they didn't know. We are unsure here. He asked if this authority would be used for other bills. The majority said they didn't know. He asked if the House would be in session this weekend, and also the response was, the majority didn't know. So it's amazing how the majority is, today, so confident on what is being run today through this rule when, just 14 hours ago, when we asked those questions, those answers were not provided to the minority. But here to talk more about the resolution that I will personally offer if we defeat the previous question is my good friend. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to again say we asked a litany of questions to try to give the minority guidance on what bills would be considered today, the context of those bills, the timing of those bills, whether we would be here this weekend. The response constantly was either: I hope not; I am unsure; I don't know. So, here we are, in the dark. But for the purpose of a rebuttal, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my good friend.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to quote my good friend, the chairman, again, this time from 2017, when he stated that martial law allows the majority to ``rush their bill with its brand-new backroom deals to the floor today without any proper deliberation.'' I think that pretty much sums up perfectly what we are doing here today. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the life of Pennsylvania State Representative Peter J. Daley II, who sadly passed away last month. Representative Daley dedicated his life to the people of the Keystone State. He began his career as a schoolteacher before becoming mayor of California Borough at the age of twenty-two, the youngest mayor in the history of the Commonwealth. Representative Daley taught and led the borough for seven years before being elected to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in 1982. During his 34 years in the Pennsylvania House, Representative Daley served as Chairman of both the Agriculture and Rural Committee and the Commerce Committee. Representative Daley's legislative achievements included enabling farms to co-exist with residential areas and reforming mortgages during the 2008 financial crash. His leadership also led to the creation of thousands of jobs in Pennsylvania. Beyond his civil service, Representative Daley worked as an attorney after earning a degree from the Widener School of Law. He was widely known as a friendly and knowledgeable lawyer, affectionately earning the nickname ``Uncle Pete'' from many he mentored. Representative Daley was an active member of his community. Every Easter and Thanksgiving, he helped organize and sponsor food distribution events. He will be greatly missed for this generous spirit. Peter is survived by Sally, his wife of 47 years, 3 children, and 5 great-grandchildren. Madam Speaker, please join me in recognizing the life of Representative Peter J. Daley II. May we be inspired by his dedicated service to the Commonwealth.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This false equivalence between an AR-15 and a so-called weapon of war just shows the ignorance of my friends on the other side of the aisle. An AR-15 is not an M16. An M16 has numerous functions: safety, three- round bursts, semi-automatic, and fully automatic. An AR-15 has no such setting as a three-round burst and the fully automatic. So this false comparison between a so-called weapon of war and what we would describe as sporting rifle, again, shows the lack of understanding about these platforms. Additionally, the AR-15 is by far the most popular sporting rifle in the United States. There are over 20 million that are in the possession of Americans right now. But while we are talking about statistics, a 2020 FBI study shows that there are more murders committed with knives, clubs, and fists than with firearms. Also, when you are looking at firearm deaths, just in the year 2020, both the CDC and the FBI reported that over half of these firearm- related deaths were suicides. So let's just be clear when we are talking about statistics. If you are breaking down those studies, you can look at 2020, where 59 percent of murders were committed by handguns. Only 3 percent were committed with what is being described as assault rifles, what I would describe as sporting rifles. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my good friend from the Committee on Rules, who is here to talk more about this issue.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the rule before us today makes in order H.R. 1808, an unconstitutional bill to ban hundreds of the most popular firearms in the United States, including the sporting rifle, the AR-15. Law-abiding Americans in places like southwestern Pennsylvania and across the country use firearms every single day for things like sport shooting, hunting, and self-defense. So despite what the House Democrats claim, this bill would do little to prevent the mass shootings or the crime they are saying that it would, and this bill would not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. I know the chairman just referenced a 1994 study. That was a congressionally mandated study to look at the 1994 assault weapons ban. That study found that ban was ineffective in reducing violent crime. ``The banned guns were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.'' A follow-up study to that 1994 ban came out in 2004, and that study found that ``the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.'' Even UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, the resident anti-gun, so- called subject matter expert, a left-leaning professor, stated: ``There's no way to make assault rifle bans effective.'' To that point, we saw that during the tragic shootings in San Bernardino, Newtown, and Buffalo, those all occurred in States that already had assault weapons bans on the books. So the question is this: Why are my far-left Democratic colleagues bringing this bill to the floor today? Well, in the words of Committee on the Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, `` . . . banning these `common use' firearms is the `point of the bill.' '' In other words, let's call this what it is. It is a gun grab, pure and simple. This bill is not about public safety. Rather, this is the most severe restriction on the Second Amendment since the passage of the assault weapons ban of 1994. It would turn an American lending a firearm to a friend to go hunting into a criminal. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want it noted that the gentleman from Massachusetts said that no one on his side is describing these weapons as ``weapons of war,'' and then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the first thing he said was that AR-15s are ``weapons are war.'' So, we need to understand that when the left and when radical Democrats are describing AR-15s as ``weapons of war,'' and as the gentleman from Texas just said, ``machine guns,'' they are doing two things simultaneously. Number one, they are showing their absolute ignorance for how these platforms operate; and two, they are deliberately trying to mislead the American people on what these platforms do. No one on my side of the aisle is trying to say that machine guns should be legal. An AR-15 is a sporting rifle; it is a semiautomatic. It is not the kind of platform that is used by the military. It is not an M16, it is not an M4; but, again, the other side tries to use this to muddy the waters and confuse the American people and to put all firearms in the same category. Let's talk about some more statistics. In 2021, a Georgetown study found that 1.67 million instances were found where firearms were used in self-defense. In 2019 alone, there were 386 self-defense killings that were determined to be justified. So, these are just some of the ways in which someone can legally use a sporting rifle. Let's talk about the chaos at the southern border. Since Joe Biden took office, over 3.1 million illegal immigrants have been apprehended at the southern border, and that includes 56 illegal immigrants who were on the terror watch list. President Biden and House Democrats have this open-door policy that has created a humanitarian crisis and a security crisis, as well, and they want to make things worse by lifting title 42. Republicans know border security is national security. That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act of 2021, to enforce title 42. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend, to explain the amendment.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague from Texas, but when the question is asked why servicemembers can't bring their M16s and their M4s home, it is because those are fully automatic weapons. They are not AR-15s. The gentlewoman actually answers her own question. The M16 and the M4 platform are automatic. The AR-15 is not automatic. They are two different platforms. The gentlewoman and the gentleman from Texas said words to the effect of, ``What are we doing? Why are Republicans not doing enough?'' or words to that effect. Well, let me remind my colleagues across the aisle that it was Republicans, not Democrats, it was Republicans in 2017 that had the Fix NICS Act. It is Republicans that are trying to get legislation passed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, not out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. It was the last administration under President Trump that banned bump stocks when the Obama administration let that ban expire. Those are just a few things that Republicans are doing in this arena. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), my good friend.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice), my good friend.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene), my good friend.