Guy Reschenthaler

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1187 is House Democrats' latest attempt to force a radical progressive agenda on the American people by turning the SEC into the social policy police. While my colleagues across the aisle continue to capitulate to the woke yuppies, continue to bow down in fear to the woke mob, House Republicans will fight for policies that help everyday Americans build better lives for themselves. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the underlying measure. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

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

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, it is relevant, these three police bills, because, as I said when I opened, if we defeat this previous question, I will bring forth the amendment personally to bring up these three bills that actually honor our police officers. Again, it is a historical norm in this body, in this Chamber, that during Police Week we focus on bills to help police officers. That is why this is relevant today. And the fact that my Democrat colleagues refuse to talk about the police raises a lot of questions. We need to help the police. Let me just give you one example of the heroic acts of the police. After a suicidal man drove off a bridge into an ocean, San Diego Police Department K-9 officer, Jonathan Wiese, sprung into action, scaling down the side of a cliff to rescue twin 2-year-old sisters who were caught inside the vehicle. When asked about this decision to throw himself over a cliff, Officer Wiese explained: ``I didn't do this job to be liked every day. I didn't do it to become rich. I did it because I wanted to be out there making a difference and helping people.'' That is the mentality of the men and women who are in our law enforcement. That is why this week they deserve our attention, and that is why my colleagues should be afforded the right to bring up their three bills through an amendment. Mr. Speaker, while the rest of the Nation recognizes National Police Week and shows gratitude for the men and women keeping our communities safe, House Democrats are prioritizing two pieces of legislation that do absolutely nothing, nothing to help law enforcement officers. Instead, they are jamming through a socialist takeover of our country's financial system that will actually hurt consumers and our Nation's small businesses. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I urge ``no'' on the underlying measure. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Colorado is asking why we are talking about the police. Well, the Democrats have been doing a lot of talking about police themselves--lots of talking about police. Representative Ilhan Omar, in talking about the Minneapolis Police Department following the death of George Floyd, said: ``You can't really reform a department that is rotten to the root.'' So, again, we are talking about police because police are heroes. We have always stood with the police, as Republicans. I wish my Democrat colleagues could say the same. But they have said repeatedly throughout the summer, in the past, atrocious things about the police. Chairwoman Maxine Waters, in response to the death of Rayshard Brooks, who tried to shoot officers with their own tasers during an attempted DUI arrest, said: ``Police reform is not enough. Getting rid of serial racist, ignorant, and stupid cops must be a top priority. Let's call them out. Police protective unions, you have got to go, too.'' The attacks go on and on, on our law enforcement. After the death of Daunte Wright, following a physical struggle where an officer fired their service weapon instead of the intended taser, Representative Rashida Tlaib said: ``Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist.'' Representative Tlaib has also said: ``No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can't be reformed.'' Again, this is what Democrats say about police. And I know my colleague from Colorado said he supports police, but in response to riots across the country surrounding the death of George Floyd, my good friend from Colorado said: ``Supporting Representative Pressley's resolution to condemn all acts of police brutality, racial profiling, and excessive use of force is the first step, but an important step, in affecting change and working to end these injustices.'' That sounds very benign, and understandably so. But if you look at the support for what the resolution actually said, let's read what the resolution said. ``The system of policing in America and its systemic targeting of and use of deadly and brutal force against people of color, particularly Black people, stems from the long legacy of slavery, lynching, Jim Crow laws, and the war on drugs in the United States.'' So, in essence, supporting that resolution is really linking modern police to the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow. It is absolutely unacceptable. Again, it was a Democrat, it was JFK in 1962, who declared this week Police Week. I just wish the current Democratic Party could stand with the Republicans and honor police, especially memorialize police who have died defending our communities and our country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon), my good friend the former general.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Colorado was talking about money in the American Rescue Plan and money going to States and how that is being used. Let's be clear about something. California was actually running a surplus in their budget, yet that didn't stop them from taking the money from the American Rescue Plan and giving that not to the police, but to illegal immigrants. And there is this myth out there that Democrats really don't want to defund the police. I would say that it is not a myth. They actually do want to defund and dismantle the police. But don't take my words for it. We can take the words of my liberal colleagues, the Democrats. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, when reacting to Mayor Bill de Blasio's plan to cut one-sixth of New York City's Police Department budget, she actually deemed that as insufficient. And I will quote my colleague: ``Defunding the police means defunding police. It doesn't mean budget tricks or funny math.'' Again, that was my colleague from New York, a Democrat. Her words, not mine. Representative Cori Bush, when celebrating St. Louis defunding their police force, despite consistently ranking as one of the most dangerous cities in the United States, to that my colleague said: ``Today's decision to defund the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department is historic. It marks a new future for our city.'' Well, my colleague might be half correct because it was historic. It did usher in a new future for that city, and that is the fact that you have crime rates rising to historic levels. My colleague from Missouri continued and she also said: ``If we remove that''--meaning the funding from the police, if we cut police funding--``and take that money and put it into our education system, put it into making sure our unhoused community members are sheltered, putting it into mental health resources, that is what we are saying because that is what is going to make our communities safer.'' So please stop the myth that Democrats actually don't want to defund the police. They absolutely do. They have said it over and over again, and their policies have proven it in many cities. And what do the American people get? Increased crime rates. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), my good friend and a former sheriff.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask how much time each side has remaining.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls). He is here to explain this amendment. He is my good friend and a former law enforcement officer.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, you wouldn't know it from the Democrats' floor schedule, but Sunday marked the beginning of National Police Week. In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation designating May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day, and the week in which that date falls as Police Week. Throughout this week, our Nation honors and pays tribute to law enforcement officers who made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country and our communities safe. When Republicans controlled the House, we marked this week by moving legislation to support our police officers and help them keep our communities safe. In stark contrast, this liberal, progressive majority is not moving a single bill to support law enforcement during this year's Police Week. Instead, Democrats are choosing to ignore Police Week, even though 2020 was the deadliest year on record for police officers in 50 years; even though, barely 1 month ago, Capitol Police Officer Billy Evans, a father of two, was killed defending this very building in which we stand; and even though more police officers have been shot and killed in the first 4\1/2\ months of 2021 than in all of 2020 and 2019. I guess that is not surprising coming from the party that has openly attacked our law enforcement officers and called for defunding, dismantling, and abolishing the police. Don't believe me? Just take their word for it. Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib tweeted: ``Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist.'' The Congresswoman then went on and said: ``No more policing, incarceration, and militarization.'' Congresswoman Cori Bush called St. Louis' decision to eliminate $4 million from the city's police budget a ``historic'' move that ``marks a new future for our city.'' Then there is Chairwoman Maxine Waters, chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, who tweeted, and I read the tweet verbatim: ``Police reform is not enough. Getting rid of serial, racist, ignorant, and stupid cops must be a top priority. Let's call them out.'' Not only is this disrespectful to the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities, but it is actually dangerous. The stats speak for themselves. In Democrat-run cities that defunded the police, they have seen increases in crime. Let's look at some of the numbers. Austin, Texas: They cut funding for police by $150 million. In return, they saw a 50 percent spike in homicides. Los Angeles: L.A. defunded the police by $175 million. They, too, experienced an increase in crime, an 11.6 percent rise in homicides. Then, there is New York City. New York City cut police funding by $1 billion, that is billion with a B. In return, New York City saw a 97 percent rise in shootings and a 45 percent increase in homicides. Let me repeat that for you because the stats are so alarming: a 97 percent increase in shootings and a 45 percent increase in homicides. Mr. Speaker, House Republicans support law enforcement officers and want to help them do their jobs safely, effectively, and professionally. That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to consider Congressman Don Bacon's Back the Blue Act, Congressman John Rutherford's Protect and Serve Act, and Congressmen McCaul, Cuellar, and Chabot's Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Law Enforcement Protection Act. Let's talk about each one of those bills. The Back the Blue Act would protect our police officers by making it a Federal crime to kill or assault a Federal law enforcement officer. The Protect and Serve Act would create enhanced penalties for anyone who targets law enforcement officers and purposefully harms them. The Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Law Enforcement Protection Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation, would ensure individuals who harm or attempt to harm U.S. Federal officers or employees serving abroad can be brought to justice and prosecuted here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from Colorado, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. The rule before us today provides for consideration of two pieces of legislation. The first bill, H.R. 1065, would create a stand-alone law requiring employers to provide accommodations to known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Republicans have long supported antidiscrimination legislation, including protections for pregnant workers. We agree pregnant workers should be protected and accommodated in the workplace. However, it is disappointing that the Education and Labor Democrats absolutely refuse to work with committee Republicans to include a longstanding provision protecting religious organizations from being forced to make employment decisions that conflict with their faith. I really hope that moving forward, my colleagues across the aisle will actually work with Republicans and help protect religious liberty. The rule also makes in order H.R. 2547, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, a collection of eight Financial Services bills that claim to address the debt collection practices and the problems thereof in the U.S. economy. But in reality, this measure is just the latest step in House Democrats' socialist takeover of our country's financial system. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, consumers are already protected from harmful debt collection practices. While Democrats claim H.R. 2547 is necessary due to the economic effects of COVID-19, several of these partisan bills were introduced last Congress prior to the pandemic. It is absolutely clear that my colleagues across the aisle are using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to dismantle our free market system and force their radical, progressive agenda on the American people. Instead of actually helping consumers, H.R. 2547 will increase healthcare costs and make credit more expensive for borrowers. In fact, under this legislation, the lowest income borrowers may be pushed out of the system entirely. Further, H.R. 2547 will make it harder for small businesses, many of which have been devastated by this pandemic. It will make it harder for those small businesses to receive payments for services rendered. Finally, H.R. 2547 undermines the CFPB's October 2020 final rule, intended to modernize debt collection practices. This rule was the result of more than 7 years of research and set forth guidelines for both consumers and debt collectors on acceptable communications. During committee consideration of this bill, Ranking Member McHenry offered a substitute amendment to address bipartisan concerns with the current financial framework. This commonsense proposal included provisions to prevent debt collection harassment of servicemembers, provide protection for cosigners in cases of death or permanent disability, and prohibited the use of Social Security numbers by consumer reporting agencies. The majority, however, refused to work with Republicans. This refusal is just the latest in the Democrats' disturbing ``my way or the highway'' approach on issues where there is actually room for bipartisan solutions. House Republicans will continue to support policies that provide Americans with access to affordable credit, while ensuring that our financial system remains safe and sound. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear my colleague from Maryland's newfound positions because, in the 1990s, I believe the majority leader actually had the opposite viewpoint and took the opposite vote. But then again, things can change, and so can opinions. It is also interesting to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use D.C.'s population as some justification for D.C. statehood. We know that the Founding Fathers knew that D.C. would grow into a large metropolis. George Washington, when he was laying out the land use of the city, he actually used Paris as the example for the city, which was at the time 800,000 residents. They used one of the biggest cities in Europe as an example of the city because they knew the District of Columbia would grow into a thriving metropolis. Yet, they still wanted to carve out D.C. as an independent district, not as a State. The argument that there are now some 700,000 residents of D.C. is a nonstarter if you are going back to the historical intent of the Founding Fathers. But let's talk about the border crisis. There has been a 400 percent increase in illegal border crossings compared to March 2020. Yet, today, we are considering a rule bringing up two immigration bills that do absolutely nothing to address this crisis. Again, we are calling up a rule on H.R. 51 that is the Democrat's unconstitutional attempt to ram through D.C. statehood for their own political gain. What is that gain? It is very simple. It is bringing in two ultraliberal Senators. D.C. is the most liberal city, second only to San Francisco, and this bill bringing two ultraliberal Senators into the Senate with the idea of abolishing the filibuster is to what end? To pack the Supreme Court to ram through a far-left, radical agenda. For those reasons, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the underlying measure. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, there was talk about retrocession. There can be arguments that the former retrocession was actually unconstitutional. In fact, the House of Representatives tried to pass a bill to say just that. It passed, and it, unfortunately, sat in the Senate Judiciary Committee without passing and challenges to the Supreme Court were dismissed on procedural grounds. Additionally, we have to remember the many reasons why the District is just that, a district. It is because the Founding Fathers did not want to create an imperial State that would have too much influence and control over the Capitol. My colleague from Maryland actually wrote about this in 1990 in a law review article published in the Catholic University Law Review. ``The Representatives from the new State, likely living minutes from their offices, will theoretically devote more time to institutional and committee politics and less to constant travel back and forth across the country, increasing their importance and influence on Capitol Hill.'' That was my colleague from Maryland. That is not my assertion. If D.C. does become a State, Madam Speaker, you will create almost by definition a super Congressman in this body and two super Senators that yield much more influence than others who have to travel back and forth to their district. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

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, we hear a lot about no taxation without representation. But there is representation. We forget that D.C. has three electoral votes. That is the 23rd Amendment. They have a Delegate in Congress. They also have local government and a mayor. They have the Home Rule Act. But taxation does bring up a serious issue because D.C. would need to raise taxes if it were to become a State. It simply is not self- sufficient economically. In fact, D.C. takes more from the Federal Government than any other area in the United States; $73,000 per capita, to be exact. That is astronomical when you think about it. The second highest State is Virginia at $16,000 per capita, followed by Maryland at $15,000 per capita. Again, D.C. takes $73,000 per capita. If this were to go through, D.C. would need to raise revenue. Because of the massive amount of Federal land in the District, you would then have to have more taxation, presumably through two ways: One, a commuter tax, taxing people that come into the District from other areas; or, two, you would have to have tolling of roads leading into the District. Both of these are incredibly problematic. The first one, a commuter tax, would actually create the problem my liberal colleagues are saying exists in the first place, no taxation without representation, because you would have the District of Columbia taxing people from, presumably, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, where have you, for commuting into the District. They wouldn't have representation here. That is actually taxation without representation. Further, if you were to toll roads leading into the District, you would infringe upon people's constitutional rights to petition the government. Imagine how much a tour bus would have to pay if they wanted to come here in the District. But I was talking about the Home Rule Act and I was talking about the 23rd Amendment, and it reminded me that there was an allegation that Republicans somehow don't care about this issue. It is actually the opposite. Republicans are the ones who have advanced more rights for the District of Columbia. Think about it. It was actually the Kennedy and the Carter administrations, both their Departments of Justice concluded that, for D.C. to be a State, it would require a constitutional amendment. They were on our side of this argument. Historically, it was President Eisenhower who pushed through the 23rd Amendment to get D.C. three electoral votes. And just a side note, it was Republican, Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush, who was instrumental in passing the 23rd Amendment. They were both Republicans. And it was President Nixon who signed the Home Rule Act into law. This has been Republican-led since the very beginning. There was also an argument about D.C. residents, that this is somehow a civil rights issue. Civil rights, that is an actual term of art. Civil rights is a violation when the rights are denied because a person is who the person is. D.C. residents don't have a lack of representation in Congress because of who they are, but, instead, of where they choose to live. And this isn't just me making this argument. The late Democrat, Representative John Dingell, made a similar argument, and I will quote the late Representative Dingell: ``I have supported every single civil rights measure that has passed this Congress since 1955, but we have to look at the facts before us. No citizen in Washington, D.C., is chained to the pillars of the U.S. Capitol. They can leave any time they want. To say this is somehow a civil rights violation is insulting to actual civil rights violations.'' Then let's go back to the three electoral votes issue. If we do follow this course of action and not repeal the 23rd Amendment before enacting D.C. statehood, you are going to have, as my colleague from Maryland just admitted, a sloppy and messy situation where the new State gets three electoral votes, and then the Federal enclave gets three electoral votes. Well, who lives in the Federal enclave? It would be the First Family. So you would, presumably, give the incumbent three electoral votes in the election, and then D.C. itself three electoral votes. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko), the lead Republican on the House Committee on Homeland Security, my good friend and colleague, here to explain the amendment.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland 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 three pieces of legislation. The first bill, H.R. 1333, limits the President's existing authority to restrict entry of foreigners into the United States. Border Patrol is encountering more than 5,500 individuals per day at our southern border. Let me say that again. They are encountering 5,500 individuals per day at the southern border. Over the weekend, President Biden finally acknowledged the situation for what it is--not a challenge but a crisis. Yet, House Democrats are moving forward with a bill that does nothing to stop the surge of migrants at the southern border and, instead, actually weakens our national security. Along the same lines, House Resolution 330 provides for consideration of H.R. 1573, which requires access to counsel for all travelers referred to a secondary inspection at airports and other ports of entry. Again, this bill does nothing to address the Biden border crisis. It would actually complicate the job of Border Patrol agents while costing taxpayers $825 million over the next 5 years. With a 233 percent increase in fentanyl seizures at our southern border, it is a shame that my liberal colleagues across the aisle are actually creating more work for Border Patrol. Instead, we should provide these brave men and women with much-needed resources to address the national security and public health consequences of the Biden border crisis. Lastly, this resolution makes in order H.R. 51, legislation admitting the present District of Columbia as the 51st State and authorizing special elections for two Senators and one Representative. This is nothing more than an unconstitutional power grab by Democrats to gain two ultraprogressive D.C. Senate seats and force radical, far- left policies on the American people. Our Founding Fathers never intended for D.C. to become a State. In Federalist No. 43, James Madison argued that if the Capital City were situated within a State, the Federal Government would be subject to undue influence by the host State. As such, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution establishes a neutral district for our Nation's representatives to meet and vote on equal ground. Further, the 23rd Amendment grants three Presidential electors specifically for the District. The original meaning of the ``district'' in the Constitution, and the necessary repeal of the 23rd Amendment, requires an amendment to the Constitution in order for D.C. to even become a State. Just don't take my word for it, though. Since 1963, every Justice Department, Republican and Democrat, that has addressed the issue of D.C. statehood has concluded that Congress does not have the authority to alter the status of the city legislatively. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy thought it was inconceivable that D.C. would be granted statehood without repealing the 23rd Amendment and that the result would ``produce an absurdity.'' Again, those are the words of RFK. Finally, the legislation before us today does nothing to address the financial implications of D.C. statehood. According to a 2020 study, D.C. ranked 150th out of 150 of the largest cities for its lack of operating efficiency--150 out of 150. The Federal Government provides billions of dollars to D.C. each year for everything from the judicial system to the pension system. Yet, House Democrats are so desperate to jam this measure through that, under H.R. 51, the Federal Government will remain responsible for funding many of the new State's functions. There is absolutely no incentive for the new State to work toward financial self-sufficiency, meaning Americans in other States would be forced to fund D.C. Democrats' priorities. Again, House Democrats are pushing ahead to admit a new State to the Union purely for partisan gain while ignoring the constitutional, practical, and legal challenges in doing so. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, my colleague may have said that these are merely my assertions. They are certainly my arguments, but they are also supported by others, particularly well-known members of the liberal party. The former Mayor of D.C. himself, Mayor Walter Washington, said: ``I would have problems with statehood in terms of exacting from it some enclaves, or little enclaves all around the city. Ultimately, it seems to me that would erode the very fabric of the city itself and the viability of the city.'' Again, that was the former Mayor of Washington, D.C., who was talking about the enclaves that are being called for in this bill. Additionally, the former D.C. Delegate Walter Fauntroy himself said that a bill like this would be in direct defiance of the prescription of the Founding Fathers. As far as the constitutional argument, it is not just me making the assertion that this would be unconstitutional because there is an issue, and that is the 23rd Amendment. Don't take it from me. Look at the Carter administration DOJ. They said that to provide statehood for the District would have to be by constitutional amendment. Otherwise, it would ignore the Framer's intent. John Harmon, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel during the Carter administration, said that this would have to be accomplished through constitutional amendment. Further, RFK, Robert Kennedy, said that Congress likely did not have the authority under Article I, Section 8, clause 17 to shrink the Federal district to essentially the same size that is being discussed. The argument that the Federal district constituting the seat of government is a permanent part of our constitutional system is substantially strengthened by the adoption of the 23rd Amendment. Thinking that we can merely repeal an amendment through legislative action, that is not how the Constitution works; otherwise, you wouldn't have had the 21st Amendment, which was needed to repeal the 18th Amendment. We could have just merely repealed it. Additionally, there are talks about this not being a political exercise. My colleague has been quoted, actually, in The Washington Post saying that ``there is a national political logic for it''--``it'' being D.C. statehood. Because the Senate has become the principal obstacle to social progress on a whole range of issues--not my words; my colleague's words--this issue is all about a power grab. We are talking about another issue that is on this rule, immigration. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 2321, the Border Surge Response and Resilience Act. For far too long, Democrats denied the crisis caused by Biden's open-border rhetoric. This bipartisan bill will ensure that DHS develops a plan and has the resources it needs to address migrant surges and secure our border. Something is clearly missing from the current administration. 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

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

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I was detained during the vote series on April 14, 2021. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. S. 578

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I rise with immense pride to celebrate the 91st birthday of my grandfather, Gerald L. Potter Sr. Gerald is a resident of Allegheny Township in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. As a veteran, Gerald served in the United States Air Force and as a reservist at the 911th Airlift Wing in southwestern Pennsylvania. During his military service, he met his wife of fifty years, my grandmother Eleen M. Potter, a lieutenant in the Air Force Nursing Corps. Continuing his dedication to service, Gerald attended the West Penn Hospital School of Nursing and graduated in their first male class. My grandfather's service and mentorship played a critical role throughout my childhood, during my service in the United States Navy, and his example continues to guide my work on behalf of Pennsylvania's 14th Congressional District. Madam Speaker, Gerald L. Potter Sr. has lived a life of distinction and remains an incredible presence in my life, our family and friends, and his community. It is with great joy that I wish him a happy 91st birthday.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of H.R. 6, a bill creating a pathway to citizenship for millions of people who entered this country illegally, while it does nothing to enforce our immigration laws or secure our borders. You heard that right. This bill does nothing to enforce our immigration laws. It does nothing to secure our borders. And it does so as a record number of illegal immigrants pour across our Southern border. And yet, House Democrats are passing a bill that will further incentivize illegal immigration and will worsen the Biden border crisis. The numbers speak for themselves. Over 100,000 migrants were encountered at our Southern border just last month. The CBP facility in Donna, Texas, was at 729 percent capacity last week. Let me repeat that. That facility was at 729 percent capacity. And, alarmingly, CBP confirmed that four people were arrested at the border, three of whom were from Yemen, one of whom was from Serbia, and those individuals matched the names on the FBI's Terrorist Screening Database. So despite my liberal progressive colleagues' claims to the contrary, this surge is directly the result of the Biden administration's decision to halt the border wall construction, to reimplement Obama-era catch-and-release policies, and to cancel President Trump's asylum agreements. This Chamber should work to address the border crisis going on, Biden's border crisis. We should not pass legislation that encourages and rewards illegal immigration and further incentivizes this crisis, yet that is what H.R. 6, in fact, does. This bill places the interest of those who broke our laws above the interests of those who followed them. It has no enforcement provisions. It includes loopholes to give green cards to gang members and criminals. It even puts U.S. taxpayers on the hook for grant programs to help illegal immigrants obtain green cards. Again, H.R. 6 would do absolutely nothing to address President Biden's border security and humanitarian crisis at the Southern border. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on H.R. 6.

Mr. RESCHENTHALER

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.