Guy Reschenthaler

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), who is here to explain this amendment and is the bill's author and my good friend.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, water is certainly infrastructure. What is not is art. While the majority places restrictions on building roads--again, roads actually are infrastructure. While there are restrictions on roads, there is no restriction on using Federal transit money for art. Essentially, this bill defines art as infrastructure. Let's talk more about roads which are, as I define, actually infrastructure. The so-called infrastructure bill actually bans construction of new roads. The bill also prioritizes urban areas at the expense of rural and suburban communities. There are massive increases in transit and rail funding, yet, again, there are restrictions on the building of roads--the transportation mode rural Americans use the most. Madam Speaker, since his first day in office, President Biden has declared a war on blue-collar workers. He has also declared a war on the American energy industry. Thanks to liberal Democrats and the fantasy of the Green New Deal, energy costs for Americans are skyrocketing. It is evident at the gas pump where prices heading into the Fourth of July weekend are the highest they have been since 2014. Now, Republicans and conservatives believe that America should be energy independent. That is good for American families, it is good for the economy, and it is certainly good for national security. That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider Congressman Jeff Duncan's Protecting American Energy Production Act. This legislation, which I am a proud cosponsor of, would prohibit the President from declaring a moratorium on fracking without congressional approval. 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 myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, my good friend from New York talked about investment, but I would like to remind my liberal colleagues that this bill ties $1 out of every $2 into Green New Deal mandates. And the infrastructure that is being talked about in some parts of this bill is actually defined as art. So let's just keep the facts in perspective and remember that these words actually do have meaning. Madam Speaker, included in today's rule is a provision that prevents consideration of joint resolutions terminating COVID-19 mandates. Right now, America is the most COVID-resilient country in the world. We are the most resilient in the world, thanks to President Trump and Operation Warp Speed. It is time for us to return to normal because President Trump, by putting science over political science, gave us the ability to return to normal. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) to discuss his resolution that would terminate the COVID-19 emergency mandates.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I also want to say it is nice to see him on the floor in good and improving health. Madam Speaker, the rule before us today makes in order 149 amendments to H.R. 3684, House Democrats' progressive infrastructure wish list that prioritizes Green New Deal mandates above actual transportation needs. Sadly, only 18 percent of the amendments made in order under this rule were offered by Republicans. Compare that with the FAST Act. The FAST Act was the last surface transportation reauthorization bill, which was signed into law back in 2015. Back then, Republicans controlled the House. Yet, 30 percent of the amendments made in order were amendments offered by Democrats. The bill itself was actually bipartisan, unlike the bill we are debating today. And even with that bipartisan bill, Republicans, when we were in charge, allowed 30 percent of the amendments to come from Democrats. That is nearly double the amount that Democrats are allowing Republicans to offer today. Democrats went so far that they stripped out a Republican amendment that was actually agreed to in the Transportation Committee's markup. It was agreed to by unanimous consent. Mr. Gimenez from Florida offered an amendment during the committee consideration of this bill, H.R. 3684. Mr. Gimenez offered an amendment that would prohibit civil penalties in the bill from being used to publicly finance political campaigns. For example, under this amendment, civil penalties for violating rules on transporting animals could not have been used to contribute to a politician's campaign coffers. It is actually unfathomable that the majority accepted that Republican amendment, an amendment that is good for transparency and good for taxpayers, only to then strip it out in the Rules Committee print. Madam Speaker, compromise used to be when Republicans and Democrats came together to pass a bill that is actually bipartisan. That is compromise. Today, though, compromise is being defined as liberals and socialists coming together to pass a partisan piece of legislation. During his inauguration, I sat there and listened to Joe Biden say: ``With unity, we can do great things.'' I don't know if the House Democrats missed that memo or if they weren't listening like I was at the inauguration. Or maybe Joe Biden was saying that unity is when liberal activist groups come together. With today's rule, liberals are doubling down on the partisan approach to government, and it is not just me saying this. According to the majority's own press release, this bill moves further left than finding compromise. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, here to explain the amendment is the bill's author, my good friend, Congresswoman Herrell. I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues across the aisle of some important facts. For one, you can't make solar panels without mining, because you have to mine critical minerals. You also can't make windmills without steel, and you can't make steel without mining coal. So that is just something to keep in mind. Mr. Speaker, last month, CBP encountered more than 180,000 illegal immigrants at our southern border. That is a new 21-year high. Think about it. Last month, in 1 month, almost 200,000 illegal immigrants were at our southern border. Many of these illegal immigrants are traveling from and through high- risk South and Central American countries where COVID-19 infection rates are skyrocketing. South America, in particular, has become a major COVID-19 hot spot with death rates eight times above the global average. And yet, the Biden administration is considering ending Title 42, the public health authority that allows Customs and Border Patrol to quickly turn back migrants due to the dangers posed by highly contagious diseases. CBP heavily relies on Title 42 authority to expel adults and family units that illegally cross the border. In May of 2021, CBP expelled more than 100,000 individuals under Title 42. Mr. Speaker, thanks to the draconian shutdown measures from far-left Governors, including Pennsylvania's Tom Wolf, many States are still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. Ending Title 42 puts that fragile recovery at risk, especially at a time when powerful variants continue to pop up across the globe. That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider my good friend's, Congresswoman Yvette Herrell, PAUSE Act. The PAUSE Act would provide for stringent enforcement of Title 42, and would prohibit HHS and DHS from weakening Title 42's implementation. Mr. 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. Yes, I do.

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

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of four pieces of legislation: H.R. 2662, the inspector general reform bill; H.R. 3005, which requires the removal of certain Capitol statues; H.R. 3684, the Democrats' surface transportation reauthorization bill; and then H. Res. 503 which establishes a select committee to investigate January 6. The first bill, H.R. 2662, reforms appointment requirements, authorities, and oversight of Federal inspectors general. Republicans agree that reforms are necessary. We agree it is necessary to ensure that IGs have the tools they need to conduct robust investigation and oversight. In fact, there are several provisions in this bill that we introduced with Republicans as coleads. But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, rather than working toward a bipartisan solution, the majority once again chooses a partisan approach and rejected good-faith efforts from Republicans to craft a proposal that both sides agreed on. The bill before us today includes problematic language limiting a President's authority to remove an IG even when that IG has committed dereliction of duty of an important act. Further, H.R. 2662 requires the President to name the first assistant as acting IG without any exceptions, even when that assistant may be implicated in the very same misconduct that led to the removal of the previous IG. Lastly, the bill grants the authority to issue subpoenas for former Federal officials without providing the necessary protections to prevent abuses of this authority. Mr. Speaker, without these problematic provisions, the IG reform bill could come to the floor with broad, bipartisan support. It is just an absolute shame though, I must say, it is not surprising that my colleagues across the aisle once again threw away an opportunity for bipartisanship simply to score cheap political points with their radical liberal base. In keeping with that theme, the rule makes in order H.R. 3684, the Democrats' retread of last year's Green New Deal. Only this time it is now disguised as infrastructure. Instead of working with Republicans to provide desperately needed infrastructure investment, House Democrats doubled down on the same mandates, the same restrictive policies, and the same social justice warrior priorities that failed to go anywhere last year. This partisan package spends nearly $548 billion on progressive priorities and programs while actually restricting new road and bridge construction. That is right. It actually restricts new construction of roads and bridges. When we talk about the money, like I said, it is about $550 billion. That is an 11 percent funding increase over last year's bill and a whopping 79 percent increase over the bipartisan FAST Act, the last surface transportation reauthorization bill that was passed by this Chamber. Alarmingly, but not surprisingly, this bill is not paid for. So then where does the money come from? Well, the answer is simple, deficit spending. Deficit spending which further fuels inflation and increases the cost of things like gas and food that all American families need. Simply put, every American will pay more for everything to meet the demands of the Democrat's far-left radical base. You would hope that with a price tag like this, with an impact on American families like this, that the bill would actually provide for massive investment to fix our Nation's crumbling roads and bridges. But you would be wrong. H.R. 3684, puts climate and the Green New Deal above real infrastructure needs. In fact, up to $1 out of every $2 spent in this bill is tied up in Green New Deal mandates. This bill puts up roadblocks for transportation and also puts up roadblocks for transporting clean-burning, affordable LNG--obviously, liquefied natural gas--which is another blow to blue-collar workers already devastated by Joe Biden's war on American energy and his war on blue- collar workers. In focusing on this radical far-left priority, the majority has failed to include the regulatory reforms necessary to address money- wasting permitting delays that currently plague critical infrastructure projects. Think about it. Right now, it takes 6 years on average just to break ground on major public projects; 6 years. An average of 20 to 30 percent of infrastructure project costs are lost to red tape. These costs are real money. This means that about $164 billion in this bill would actually just be wasted on red tape and project delays. But that is not even the most egregious example of wasteful spending in this legislation. This bill lifts a bipartisan ban and allows the Federal Transit Administration to spend money on art. That is right. According to liberals across the aisle, art is now infrastructure. America's taxpayer dollars are hard at work in--clearly, newspeak liberal, or really newspeak on display--calling art infrastructure. Finally, the bill favors big urban areas to the detriment of smaller rural communities like the ones I represent in southwestern Pennsylvania. H.R. 3684 prioritizes funding for urban transportation modes like transit and rail over roads and bridges that everyday Americans use. In fact, more money is given to electric vehicle charging stations than to the entire Rebuild Rural grant program. I would also be remiss if I failed to point out that those very same electric vehicles cannot be built without critical minerals from China. China is, of course, the world's number one polluter. So where are the climate priorities? Where are the environmental priorities that my colleagues on the liberal side of the aisle claim they care about? At the end of the day, the Democrats are prioritizing their fantasy of the Green New Deal over traditional concepts of actual infrastructure. My colleagues across the aisle, the Liberal Party, have chosen to bow down to the woke mob that they are terrified of. They have chosen to prioritize woke liberal yuppies over rural America and blue-collar workers that actually work for a living. Mr. Speaker, for this reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, just another fact of life now. We cannot make an electronic vehicle without critical minerals. Unfortunately, due to the red tape that is put upon the mining industry by liberals across the aisle, we are now dependent on China for roughly 80 percent of our critical minerals. Simply put, we now cannot make an electric car without China. Here to talk about another predicament that liberals across the aisle put us in is my good friend from Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, once again, this Chamber is considering legislation that could easily have passed with bipartisan support. If Democrats would stop appeasing their radical, progressive base and they would stop worrying about what whiny, spoiled millennials are saying on Twitter, if they decided they would finally try to approach their work here in some kind of bipartisan manner, then we could work for real solutions for real Americans that would help the country. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of S. 475, a bipartisan bill establishing a national holiday on June 19, known as Juneteenth National Independence Day. The June 19th date marks the date that Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, and announced the end of slavery and the Civil War. I am honored to stand here with my colleague from Pennsylvania as the Battle of Gettysburg, of course, took place in Pennsylvania, involving the largest number of Civil War casualties, and marked the turning point of the war. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Keystone State played a crucial part in the Civil War. My State provided over 350,000 soldiers and sailors, more than any other Northern State except New York. Pennsylvania also served as a vital resource for military equipment and food for the Union Army. As I already mentioned, the Commonwealth was the site of the world's largest battle, that of Gettysburg. So, it probably comes as no surprise that Pennsylvania already recognizes Juneteenth. In fact, since 1980, 47 States, including, as I said, my home State of Pennsylvania, as well as the District of Columbia, have issued legislation recognizing Juneteenth as a holiday or as a day of observance. Designating June 19 as a national holiday would increase awareness and education on Juneteenth; it would celebrate Black history and culture; and it would recognize the Americans who fought and died to end slavery. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would like to thank my good friend and colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for the kind words for my home State of Pennsylvania, and for recognizing the descendants of those who fought to end slavery, especially those in Pennsylvania. Additionally, I would like to commend her on working on the House companion for, from what I am understanding, years and years. So this certainly says volumes about the work she put into the bill, and I would just like to thank her. Mr. Speaker, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, but it took 2\1/2\ years for slaves in Texas to learn of their freedom. S. 475 will finally designate June 19 as a national holiday and highlight the important history and contribution of Black Americans and those who fought and died to end slavery. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

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

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, in addition to making H.R. 256 and H.R. 1187 in order, the rule before us today includes a budget-deeming resolution that puts the House on track for a $1.5 trillion spending spree. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my good friend and ranking member of the Budget Committee, to discuss this reckless spending spree.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of two pieces of legislation. The first is H.R. 256, which would repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or the AUMF. This AUMF authorizes the President to defend the Nation against threats posed by and in Iraq. Madam Speaker, as an Iraq war veteran, I sat literally face-to-face with bombmakers, murderers, and other terrorists who were willing to give up their lives in their quest to destroy America. The 2002 AUMF is the only current legal framework for fighting Iranian-backed militia operating in Iraq. I agree that there are important conversations to be had about the War Powers Resolution and the future of the 2002 AUMF. However, Congress should undertake a collaborative process and work with stakeholders, like the Department of Defense and the intelligence community, and we should work with them to draft a replacement for the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs before we repeal important authorities for confronting and eliminating terrorists. If we don't do this, we leave our Nation open to threats from Iran, which is already emboldened by President Biden's kowtowing and his capitulations, so we would be more vulnerable to Iran. We also leave ourselves vulnerable to other terrorist organizations that are intent on destroying and taking American lives both at home and abroad. This rule also makes in order H.R. 1187, the so-called Corporate Governance Improvement and Investor Protection Act. In reality, this measure is nothing more than House Democrats' latest attempt to force their radical, far-left agenda on the American people. Republicans support securities regulation and disclosure regimes that are actually helpful to American investors and entrepreneurs. The bill before us today is meant to appeal to social activists and woke corporations rather than Main Street investors looking to save money for retirement, pay for their kids' college education, or simply build a better life. H.R. 1187 will push the SEC to focus on social activism rather than investor interests and use our securities laws to push a partisan progressive agenda. If you don't believe me, just don't take my word for it. Look at the words of Senator Elizabeth Warren. She put out a press release about provisions in this bill, which she claimed will ``accelerate the market transition from fossil fuels to cleaner and more sustainable energy sources that mitigate climate change.'' Those are her words. The activism is right there. It is written into this bill. Clearly, H.R. 1187 is about the social justice Democrats' war on American coal, oil, and gas producers and the people who actually work in those industries. It is more about that than enhancing shareholder value. I would just like to remind my colleagues that under the law, public companies are already required to publicly disclose any material information that investors would find important to making investment decisions. If the mandatory disclosures in H.R. 1187 were actually material, public companies would already be required to disclose them. Rather, each of these disclosures, but particularly the climate and socially related disclosures, are intended to what I would call name and shame public companies and bully them into compliance with the House Democrats' radical, far-left progressive agenda. Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, H.R. 1187 discourages private companies from going public; it encourages public companies to then go private; and it limits investment opportunities for hardworking Americans. While my colleagues across the aisle continue to bow before the woke mob and continue to appease woke yuppies, House Republicans will stand and fight for everyday Americans trying to save their hard-earned money and work toward a better life for themselves and their families. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my very good friend.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, last month there were over 180,000 encounters at the southern border, almost 200,000 encounters at the southern border. That is a new 20-year record for illegal border crossings, 20-year record. Alarmingly, CBP has seized more deadly fentanyl so far in 2021 than in all of 2020. Based on our current trends, we can expect overdose deaths in 2021 to meet, if not exceed, the 90,000 Americans who lost their lives between September 2019 and September 2020, 90,000 American deaths. Yet Vice President Harris, who President Biden put in charge of stemming migration at our southern border, refuses to go firsthand to see the crisis in person. In Vice President Harris' own words, ``If you want to fix a problem, you have to go where the problem exists.'' That is what the Vice President said. Alarmingly, she hasn't gone to the southern border at all. It would be laughable if this wasn't a humanitarian crisis. It would be laughable if Americans weren't going to die of overdoses because of fentanyl crossing our southern border. That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider Congresswoman Ashley Hinson's See the Crisis Act. This legislation would restrict Vice President Harris from using taxpayer dollars to travel internationally until she actually visits our southern border. 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 the gentleman such time as he may consume.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson) to explain the amendment.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

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