Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 114 (Wednesday, June 30, 2021)

[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 30, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H3316-H3322]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3684, INVESTING IN A NEW
VISION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION IN AMERICA ACT;
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 508 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 508

Resolved, That during further consideration of the bill
(H.R. 3684) to authorize funds for Federal-aid highways,
highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other
purposes, pursuant to section 6 of House Resolution 504--
(a) after debate, each further amendment printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
not earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant
to subsection (b) shall be considered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may
be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question
is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question; and
(b) it shall be in order at any time after debate for the
chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of
further amendments printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of,
and such amendments en bloc shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or their
respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
Sec. 2. All points of order against the further amendments
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules or amendments
en bloc described in subsection (b) of the first section of
this resolution are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order without intervention of any
point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing
for adjournment during the month of July.
Sec. 4. The provisions of section 202 of the National
Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622) shall not apply during the
remainder of the One Hundred Seventeenth Congress to a joint
resolution terminating the national emergency declared by the
President on March 13, 2020.
Sec. 5. House Resolution 188, agreed to March 8, 2021 (as
most recently amended by House Resolution 403, agreed to May
18, 2021), is amended by striking ``July 1, 2021'' each place
it appears and inserting (in each instance) ``July 30,
2021''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the Committee on Rules met
and reported a rule, House Resolution 508, to provide for further
consideration of H.R. 3684, the INVEST in America Act under a
structured rule.
The rule makes in order 149 amendments and provides en bloc authority
to the chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
The rule also allows for consideration of concurrent resolutions
providing for adjournment during the month of July, and provides that
the provisions of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act shall not
apply for the remainder of the 117th Congress to a joint resolution
terminating the national emergency declared by the President on March
13, 2020.
Lastly, the rule provides for recess instructions, suspension
authority, and same-day authority through July 30, 2021.
Madam Speaker, our roads and bridges are crumbling before our eyes,
and our public transportation systems are suffering drastically from
reduced ridership during the pandemic. With these challenges comes a
great opportunity. Our country can use this unique once-in-a-generation
opportunity to reimagine and rebuild our community in America's
transportation systems and build back better.
As a former member of the California Air Resources Board and a former
chair of both the State Assembly Transportation Committee and the State
Senate Transportation Committee and a former member of the Bay Area's
MPO, I have spent my career focused on the transportation sector and
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants to help fight
against climate change.

{time} 1245

In my 30 years of public service, never has the time been more ripe
to seize this opportunity to reimagine and reinvest in America's
transportation infrastructure.
The INVEST in America Act offers a new approach to Federal
transportation policy by emphasizing fixing our existing roads and
bridges first and making record investments in passenger rail, public
transit, cycling and walking infrastructure, and zero-emission options
while creating safer, more connected communities for all Americans.
This bill would also help create millions of jobs that cannot be
exported.
Thanks to strong Buy American provisions and labor protections,
including Davis-Bacon, the work will be fueled by American workers,
manufacturing, and ingenuity, with targeted investments in rural and
underserved communities.
Madam Speaker, our country badly needs the investments outlined in
this bill. Over 40 percent of America's roads are in poor or mediocre
condition, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. In
fact, our roads have a D rating, and American motorists are forced to
pay over $1,000 every year in wasted time and fuel as a result of our
failure to act.
In my own State, California's infrastructure does not fare any
better. We have a C-minus rating overall, with a D rating for roads and
a C-minus for bridges and transit, in spite of California voters voting
over and over again to tax themselves to invest in our infrastructure.
Not only is the problem of crumbling infrastructure a detriment to
our economy, but it is dangerous to public safety. Over 36,000
Americans die on our Nation's roadways every year. The INVEST in
America Act directs $343 billion to roads, bridges, and safety
programs, with record levels of investment in walking and cycling
infrastructure, complete streets planning and smarter road design, and
safe routes to schools.
This transformative bill also directs Federal investments in transit
and rail and reimagines our national transportation policies. Public
transit is essential to everyday living in communities across the
country, providing access to jobs, schools, healthcare, and childcare.
Currently, there is a $176 billion transit backlog, and transit
ridership, of course, is declining because of COVID-19. These issues,
if not addressed, stand to further increase congestion, hamper the
economy, worsen air quality, and disproportionately affect underserved
communities.
The INVEST in America Act provides $109 billion for transit to create
a safe and reliable transit system that ensures every American,
including those

[[Page H3317]]

in economically disadvantaged and underserved neighborhoods, can get to
essential services, as I have said, like jobs, healthcare, and
childcare.
Importantly, this effort takes every opportunity to meet the
challenges of the climate crisis. Climate change is the defining
challenge of our time, and transportation is the number one source of
greenhouse gas emissions. The INVEST in America Act takes bold steps to
build the clean infrastructure and transportation sector of the future
by reforming existing programs and launching new initiatives to reduce
carbon pollution.
For example, it invests $8.3 billion in highway, transit, and rail
projects that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and it holds States
accountable for their performance by measuring annual progress.
Moreover, under the Clean Corridors program, a program that I was
proud to author, it invests $4 billion in electric vehicle charging and
alternative fueling stations. This infrastructure along designated
corridors will help reduce range anxiety and help America shift to the
next generation of clean vehicles.
To further address climate change and equity, this bill increases
funding and incentives for transit-oriented development, ensuring that
more Americans have access to walkable and transit-supportive
communities, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas
emissions and, most importantly, improving their quality of life and
their ability to be at home with their family.
Finally, this bill invests in safe drinking water infrastructure by
replacing dangerous lead piping and treating PFAS in our water supply.
It will also help ensure that all families can afford a safe and
reliable water supply.
Madam Speaker, we cannot allow this opportunity to slip through our
fingers. Now is the time for transformative investments in our
transportation systems and our infrastructure to improve our roads,
bridges, railways, and transit systems to support American workers, to
address equity and environmental justice, and to fight boldly against
the climate crisis.
That is why I proudly support the INVEST in America Act.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
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. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I look forward to continuing this
dialogue respectfully.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Morelle), a very distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I thank my dear friend and fellow member
of the Rules Committee, Mr. DeSaulnier, for giving me the opportunity
to speak for just a moment.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule that would allow us to
consider the INVEST in America Act.
This long-overdue infrastructure legislation will prioritize direct
Federal investments in roads, bridges, transit, and rail, while also
leveraging modern and innovative approaches to reliable and sustainable
infrastructure investments.
As we continue our recovery from the pandemic and seek to revitalize
our communities, we know an essential part of that is strengthening our
local infrastructure. Modernizing our infrastructure helps to meet
growing mobility demands, create jobs, and grow the economy, all while
creating stronger and more interconnected communities.
I am thrilled that this legislative package lays the groundwork for
major investments across the country while also supporting
opportunities to strengthen our local infrastructure through targeted
priorities.
My own community of Rochester, New York, will only grow stronger
through the enactment of the INVEST in America Act, and I look forward
to seeing this critical legislation passed into law.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to have helped move this transformative
bill forward, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
vote in favor of the rule and the underlying bill. And I call on our
partners in the Senate to join us in making this investment a reality.
Madam Speaker, I thank Chairman DeFazio for his tireless work on this
effort, and my dear friend, Mr. DeSaulnier, for yielding time.
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. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for
yielding.

[[Page H3318]]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule.
While I do not support the legislation this rule brings up, that is
not the main reason for my objection. I am opposed to the rule before
us because provision 6 in the rule turns off section 202 of the
National Emergencies Act relating to the COVID-19 national emergency
for the remainder of the 117th Congress.
What this line really does is kill a joint resolution I introduced 2
weeks ago in accordance with the National Emergencies Act. The framers
of this act wrote the law to inject congressional oversight to rein in
the emergency powers codified into U.S. law that give the President
additional powers in times of declared emergency.
Section 202 outlined the process where, 6 months after an emergency
is declared, Congress meets to consider a joint resolution of
termination, forcing the debate on the necessity of continuing the
national emergency and correlating powers given to the President.
Over a year later, Congress has never met to debate the merit of the
COVID-19 declared emergency, even after the President extended the
emergency another year. This is because Congress has a poor track
record in enforcing our emergency duties.
In fact, there are over 30 active emergencies on the books dating
back to the Carter administration--hardly emergencies, I take it--few
of which this body has ever met to debate the merit of the emergency
and the powers it invokes.
With nationwide cases falling, vaccine rates rising, mask mandates
being lifted, and States reopening with no capacity limits, it would
seem appropriate to debate whether or not this Nation is truly in a
state of emergency, not to mention, once again, the mandated duties of
oversight of the executive branch.
Therefore, I introduced H.J. Res. 52 to have this debate. I did this
because the first joint resolution I introduced was killed in a prior
rule.

{time} 1300

Now the majority is killing debate on the COVID emergency for the
entire 117th Congress unless the majority leadership determines we can
have this debate. I guess that is not part of the law.
This completely goes against the explicit expedited procedure in the
law providing for quick and efficient oversight. This is tyranny of the
majority at its finest.
Why must we continue to neglect our duties?
Why must we continue the congressional track record of being asleep
at the wheel and yielding more power to the executive?
The National Emergencies Act mandates that we have this debate, and
that is all my joint resolution does--require the people's
Representatives to meet, debate, and vote on a termination resolution
of the COVID emergency powers in accordance with the law.
Madam Speaker, you may feel that we are still in an emergency. You
may still feel COVID is a threat but not a national emergency, or you
may feel the national emergency is over. However you feel, I am simply
asking that we engage in the debate as the law requires.
Using the National Emergencies Act, the executive has requested
powers outside the scope of Article II. As this declared emergency
continues, the executive could request even more. This body should
debate on whether to rein in the extraordinary powers, especially among
the backdrop of a radically different COVID situation in this Nation.
In a time when this body is trying to reassert its claim on Article I
authorization, simple oversight like this restores trust. Trust is a
series of promises kept with the citizens of this great Nation. Imagine
that, trust, just by following the definitions and the law.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania on his
kind observation about my own personal health.
Just in regards to this debate, as somebody who went into the ICU on
the first date in the State of California that the Governor of
California actually required shelter in place, and I was then put on a
ventilator for 4 weeks at the same time that the country was dealing
with this pandemic, maybe I have a little unique perspective.
So evidence-based research maybe is in the mind of the beholder. I
trust my doctors. I know they are human, and I know evidence-based
research is the reason I stand here in front of you, Madam Speaker, by
following the doctors.
I think of what the Speaker is doing and what the President is doing,
and that is following evidence-based research and statistically
protecting Americans. We know if Americans get vaccinated, we know if
we are sensitive to distances around us and masking, we still have
challenges. And for somebody like myself, who has an underlying health
condition, I am particularly sensitive to this. Not everybody is in the
same position vis-a-vis their medical risks.
So with all due respect, the debate is always a good one, but from my
perspective I wish that people would keep in mind that this pandemic is
not done until the evidence-based research indicates that it is done. I
know everybody wants to get back to normal. I know I do too, as well,
but I would like to be able to enjoy this wonderful existence that we
all are allowed to do as well.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman
from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I
share the bipartisan happiness at seeing his smiling face and good
health back.
I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 3684, the
INVEST in America Act.
We need to invest in the infrastructure of the future, not the past.
This surface transportation reauthorization legislation, along with the
important package of water infrastructure and assistance outlined in
this bill will make a meaningful and bold difference in the lives of
Americans.
I am proud to have authored a number of provisions in this bill, but
at the moment I want to specifically address the water package that is
in the bill, thanks to the tireless work of the Energy and Commerce
Committee.
Water is a human right that no one should be denied. In this
pandemic, the very first instructions before we ever wore masks, we
told people to wash your hands. Yet, so many Americans didn't have
access to water because the water had been turned off. Imagine living
in this pandemic and not having sanitary conditions--water in a running
bathroom.
This bill includes legislation that I have authored with
Representatives Tlaib and Blunt Rochester, the Water Debt Relief Act,
that establishes a $4 billion residential emergency relief program
through EPA for public water systems to forgive any debt incurred by
struggling households since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many
are in our frontline communities. It would also prevent water systems
from cutting off any of these households from clean water. People have
a right to be able to wash their hands.
Additionally, it includes bipartisan legislation that I have co-led
with Representatives Blunt Rochester, Katko, and Tlaib that would
establish a permanent, long-term water assistance program to address
the growing water debt crisis we have.
I thank the leadership of Chairman DeFazio and Chairman Pallone, and
I urge my colleagues to support this.
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

[[Page H3319]]

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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
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. DUNCAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question, so that
we can amend the rule to immediately consider H.R. 751, the Protecting
American Energy Production Act.
Now, my bill is straightforward. It prohibits the President from
declaring a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking,
unless Congress authorizes the moratorium.
It further expresses the sense of Congress that States should
maintain authority for the regulation of oil and natural gas production
on State and private lands. That is how it has been done for decades.
President Biden and House Democrats have wasted no time in this
Congress, and since his administration began, undermining American
energy independence. They have signaled that they will use any tool
necessary to end fossil fuel production in the United States.
In fact, Democrats keep rushing to President Biden's defense,
claiming he never supported a fracking ban, which is simply not true.
When he was asked by a debate moderator during the Presidential debates
in 2019 if there was any place for fossil fuels in his administration,
this is what Senator Biden, now-President Biden, actually said: ``No.
We would work it out. We would make sure it's eliminated.''
He was talking about fossil fuels.
How is this policy working out for the American people at the pump?
They are seeing higher prices for gasoline, and as they are getting
ready to travel over the holidays and go on vacation, they are paying
more at the pump. That is less money to spend on their family for
family vacation during the holiday this summer. That is what bad policy
gets you, Madam Speaker.
President Biden has already made good on his promises to revoke the
Keystone XL permit, ultimately resulting in its cancelation and the
loss of thousands of American and Canadian jobs--thousands of jobs. He
also has halted all new Federal oil and gas leases. There is no telling
which energy-killing promise he will fulfill next as he continues his
war against American energy.
Instead of prioritizing American jobs and American energy, President
Biden and the Democrats would rather appease the backwards logic of the
radical environmental left. I have no other way to say it.
They would rather make us weaker and more reliant on energy from our
foreign adversaries at a time when we are energy independent and we are
actually exporting oil and gas.
The adversaries that they are supporting have no regard for the
environmental standards that we all push in this country.
The INVEST in America Act--or more accurately titled, the green new
deal and inflation transportation act--is a continuation of this
America-last agenda. One out of every $2 spent in this bill is tied up
in Green New Deal priorities. Madam Speaker, one out of every $2 is
tied up in Green New Deal priorities.
It is ironic that while President Biden has no problem killing
American energy projects and jobs, he is greenlighting at the same time
Russian energy projects, like the Nord Stream II Pipeline that is going
to bring gas into Europe and give Vladimir Putin even more control to
manipulate politics in Europe.
President Biden doesn't think twice before waiving sanctions on a
Russian company and friend of Vladimir Putin's.
Undercutting American energy production is a handout to Vladimir
Putin and opens doors for Russia to influence operations across Europe
and even in the United States.
New England doesn't have a pipeline for natural gas to come up there.
They bring an LNG ship in from Russia that provides natural gas to the
New England States--Russian, not American gas.
Colonial Pipeline's cyberattack is the most recent reminder of this
longstanding effort by the Russians. Putin will continue to use energy
as a political weapon, and through policies like the partisan Green New
Deal infrastructure package, Democrats will continue to help Russia,
not American families--they are paying more at the pump this summer--
Russia, Vladimir Putin. Putin will continue to use those policies.

The infrastructure policies we should be focused on are hardening our
energy infrastructure to protect against these attacks, but the INVEST
in America Act doesn't do this.
It instead remakes the entire energy market, squeezes fossil fuels,
and makes the grid far more vulnerable to attacks.
The INVEST in America Act puts radical climate and Green New Deal
priorities above the infrastructure needs of the Nation.
It creates more roadblocks for transporting clean-burning LNG, gives
more money to EV charging stations than to the entire Rebuild Rural
America grant program, and it fails to include any regulatory reforms
that plague infrastructure projects.
My goodness, instead of voting on a $548 billion Green New Deal-
disguised infrastructure bill, we should be protecting American energy
production and American energy jobs here in the United States.
Not long ago, the U.S. depended on OPEC for much of our oil supply.
We now lead the world in oil and gas production as well as emission
reduction. That is a fact that the left doesn't want to acknowledge. We
lead the world in emissions reduction.
The Democrats refuse to acknowledge this and recognize this. Instead,
they want to surrender one of our greatest economic and strategic
advantages: our energy independence. As Admiral Mike Mullen once said:
``There is no national security without energy security.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from South
Carolina such additional time as he may consume.
Mr. DUNCAN. Listen to this, Madam Speaker, there is no national
security without energy security.
How true is that statement?
This is all in the name of saving the climate. The reality is phasing
out fossil fuels in the United States won't eliminate carbon emissions
globally. Production will just happen someplace else, oftentimes in
dirty production areas, because they don't have the same regulations
that we have so that the environment gets dirtier, along with the jobs
and geopolitical leverage that we have when we export our energy.
Democrats' anti-fossil fuel agenda will have no effect on the
climate. Eliminating fossil fuels will also undercut our own economic
interests. On average, a Federal fracking ban will increase household
energy costs by $618 a year.

[[Page H3320]]

Allowing President Biden to ban fracking will make all of this worse.
Russia, China, and Iran stand ready to take advantage of us as we
continue to pursue this self-inflicting harm.
By prohibiting the President from banning fracking, we, in turn,
safeguard our energy production, our national security, our
geopolitical influence, and the livelihoods of Americans--thousands of
Americans--who have lost their job.
At the end of the day, American citizens--our constituents--pay less
at the pump and for their household energy needs when we produce energy
here in this country. That is a winning solution, and this bill that we
are hoping to replace isn't.
So if President Biden wants to back up his buy America rhetoric, I
have a question for him:
Why not start right here?
Let's buy American energy.
If he truly believes in buy America, then let's buy American energy
and support American energy jobs.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question so that the House will immediately consider this bill, put
Americans back to work, and protect our national energy security.

{time} 1315

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Just briefly on the points that were just brought up. As somebody who
represents a county that has four refineries in it, those four
refineries produce much of the refined CARB-certified fuel on the West
Coast and in California. Also, a county that is headquarters to the
second largest energy company in the United States, Chevron, this isn't
about ending the fossil fuel industry.
It is about the transition from that energy source to a new, cleaner,
renewable, alternative fuel energy source. It is about being
independent and being mindful about what our global competitors are
doing; what the Chinese are doing to get ahead of us in this energy
source.
So with all due respect, as someone who knows the benefit and also
the dangers and the opportunities to the fossil fuel industry, as we
have experienced it in this country, those four refineries only employ
people, as required by State statute, who have graduated from State-
approved apprenticeship programs, the best apprenticeship programs in
the world. Each one of those jobs have a multiplier of 14. We like
those jobs. We want to keep those jobs.
But we want to meet the reductions we have to have to be leaders in
this country on climate reductions, and prepare for a future that isn't
dependent on the fossil fuel industry; both for our public health, and
our environment, and for our economy.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
I came to Congress 25 years ago determined that the Federal
Government should be a better partner, working with our communities,
making our families safer, healthier, and more economically secure.
I have traveled to over 200 communities, working with architects,
landscape, engineers, local government, State government, transit,
listening to their concerns about how we make the transportation system
work better.
I can say unequivocally that this legislation that we are considering
today reflects what America wants. There is a broad consensus that we
can't keep doing the same thing.
We need to make sure that we build a low-carbon future; that it is
equitable; that deals with the challenges that indiscriminate
infrastructure inflicted on communities. I have an example in my
hometown, where a transportation project, a freeway, just ripped
through an African-American community, without the sense of what it was
doing to people who weren't involved.
Well, people don't want to do that anymore, and they want to have a
multi-modal solution.
The nonsense that we hear from the other side, that somehow this will
prohibit construction of new roads, is not true. But what it does is
emphasize fixing it first and having plans that put the pieces together
in a way that solves problems rather than creating new ones.
Yes, we ought to pursue the bipartisan agreement that the President
has struck with our friends in the Senate. I think that is optimistic.
But we need to reauthorize the Surface Transportation Act. And with the
approach that has been offered by the administration and embodied in
this legislation, we are cutting to the chase.
The details here matter. $45 billion would be authorized to deal with
the lead pipes that are poisoning our children; streamlining drinking
water standards. Yes, it deals with roads and bridges. It has
transformational investments for transit, $109 billion, and attention
to rural and urban areas. Passenger and freight rail, and triples
funding for Amtrak.
It is beyond just the numbers. It is how we put these pieces
together.
Madam Speaker, I cringe a little bit when I have my friends dismiss
the notions of a low-carbon future. I bring you greetings from
Portland, Oregon, where we had three record-breaking 116-degree
temperatures in June. The Pacific Northwest is facing a climate
catastrophe that, in no small measure, is due to the fact that we are
not doing what we all could to have a low-carbon future.
This legislation captures the moment. It invests in the future, not
in the past. It is how we will heal divisions, protect the planet,
revitalize the economy, and pull America together.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The gentleman from Oregon said that he ran for Congress to make
everyday Americans more financially secure. If that is the case, this
bill is not going to do any of that, and here is why. There is a little
thing called inflation, which is a tax from an economic perspective.
This bill's massive price tag, which is just under $550 billion, that
price tag relies heavily on deficit spending, which further fuels
inflation and increases the costs of goods, like food and gas, that
everyday Americans need. That is the true cost--just one of the true
costs of this bill, which will hurt blue-collar workers.
Now, if you are a member of the Zoom class, if you are a woke yuppie
that is staring at screens all day, not actually working for a living,
well, you can take your $100,000-plus income and buy an electric
vehicle.
But let's talk about electric vehicles. Although the gentleman from
Oregon thinks they are the wave of the future, this bill provides $4
billion for electric vehicle charging stations, but only $1 billion for
the Rebuild Rural grant program that helps people who are likely living
in rural areas, making less than $100,000.
And why I am focused on $100,000 is because 70 percent of electric
car owners earn at least $100,000 a year. Again, the electric vehicles
are not going to do anything really for the environment, but it sounds
good if you are a woke yuppie sitting at home.
Further, this empowers China, which China is the world's greatest
polluter. If you take all the emissions of the United States, all of
the EU, and Japan, added together, we still collectively don't emit
more than China does. And we rely on China for 80 percent of our
critical minerals that we need to actually make an electronic vehicle.
So, again, scoring cheap political points, hurting blue-collar
workers, and doing zero to actually improve the environment.
But talking about radical policies: Radical progressives, including
Members of this very body, have called for a Federal ban on fracking.
Again, more of the war on blue-collar workers.
So, apparently, Democrats and liberal Progressives don't care about
American workers. These blue-collar workers, these guys that are
working the oil and gas pads of southwestern Pennsylvania, they rely on
fracking for jobs. In fact, a fracking ban would cost 7.5 million jobs
by 2022.
They must not care. Democrats must not care about American families
either because household energy costs would increase over $600 per
year, while household incomes would fall by $5,400 a year annually.
My good friend, my fellow Member from Pennsylvania, Congressman Fred
Keller, knows just how devastating a

[[Page H3321]]

fracking ban would be to our State and national economy.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. Keller) to explain this.
Mr. KELLER. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and co-Pennsylvanian
for yielding to me.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question so that
we can amend the rule to immediately consider H.R. 751, the Protecting
American Energy Production Act, which would prevent the Biden
administration from unilaterally imposing a moratorium on hydraulic
fracturing.
Pennsylvania is home to some of the most abundant energy and natural
gas resources in the Nation, and our economy is proof of all the
benefits that come with it. On any given day, up to 10 percent of the
Nation's dry natural gas comes out of Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional
District.
Energy producers have been critical partners in central and
northeastern Pennsylvania, investing in local communities, colleges,
generating countless job opportunities, and preparing the next
generation of workers for in-demand careers.
However, President Biden has made it clear that he is no friend of
American energy or the workers employed by this industry. He has
canceled the Keystone XL pipeline, rejoined the disastrous Paris
climate accords, and banned all new oil and gas leases on Federal
lands.
Meanwhile, the President lifted sanctions on Russia's Nord Stream 2
pipeline, thereby prioritizing Russian energy over domestic American
energy.
Overregulation, Federal mandates, and policies that will kill
American energy production ignore facts and, instead, increase energy
costs and weaken our national security.
These energy-killing policies are paving the way for the Green New
Deal. Democrats like to sell this package as a greener America when, in
reality, it makes our Nation more dependent on foreign nations for our
growing energy needs; I might add, foreign nations that don't protect
the environment and develop this energy as safely as we do here in the
United States.
These energy needs, what we do in the United States, would sustain
good-paying jobs, create prosperity for future generations, and secure
American interests around the globe. We must invest in critical
infrastructure like pipelines and refineries, and promote a regulatory
environment that cultivates innovation in the energy sector.
We must reject policies that place higher premiums on appeasing the
Democrats' Green New Deal ambitions than protecting the future of
America's energy sector and the thousands of American workers it
employs.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that
the House can immediately consider this important legislation.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
A couple of points. I appreciate the attention to the Clean Corridors
Program. Again, this is about preparing for the future, from my
perspective. This bill prepares for the future, and it prepares
American workers to transition to that future and future generations.
On the Clean Corridors Program, Chinese are already doing this. In
December, they produced 100,000 new charging and alternative fuel
stations to prepare for the future. The Chinese have over a million of
these stations. The U.S. has less than 50,000.

So if we want to talk about energy independence, right on. That is
what we want to talk about. We want to prepare America for the future,
while we protect the planet.
The State of California gets more venture capital for research and
renewables and alternative fuels than the other 49 States combined.
Why is that?
Because we are preparing for the future. We want to be competitive,
and we want our workforce to continue to be the best in the world when
it comes to energy. And we want to compete against the Chinese so that
we are ready to capture these new energy sources. And we are doing it.
It is not only good for the environment, it is good for the economy.
And I would say, as a Californian who has been in the middle of
this--and I will agree to being a liberal. I was once described as a
liberal Republican under former party affiliations. I don't think there
is any such thing anymore, probably.
This is about preparing for the future. And mostly it is about
preparing our American workforce to continue to be what they have been
for so long, the best workforce, the best workers in the world. But you
give them the tools to do that.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Sires), my good friend.
Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, it is nice to see our colleague back, ready
for the fight. It is nice to have him back.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak in favor of the INVEST in
America Act today. This type of investment in our country's surface
transportation is long overdue.
The American Society of Civil Engineers has rated our infrastructure
a C-minus and said that we will need additional $2.6 trillion over the
next decade to make the needed upgrades and repairs.
In New Jersey, drivers lose an average of $713 per year from driving
on our roads, and 7.8 percent of our bridges are structurally
deficient.
The INVEST in America Act will deliver $343 billion for roads,
bridges, and safety; $109 billion for transit; and $95 billion for
freight and passenger rail.
Beyond improving our surface transportation networks, this bill will
make crucial investments to reduce carbon pollution and increase
climate resiliency.
I also want to thank Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Graves for
including funding for Member Designated Projects in the INVEST in
America Act, which will deliver necessary resources to communities in a
transparent and accountable fashion.
My district will receive critical funding for projects to connect
pedestrians with transit, improve roadway safety, construct a ferry
terminal, and improve drainage systems and traffic signals.
This bill is a win for New Jersey and a win for our country. We have
costly needs, and the INVEST in America Act meets them.

{time} 1330

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California, who I do consider a
friend, was talking about electric vehicles. I think there is a
disconnect with where that electricity comes from.
The drywall is not producing electricity when you plug in an electric
vehicle. The electricity is being manufactured in a plant. So even if
you had 100 percent electric vehicles, the source of the electricity is
still coming from some kind of fossil fuel. That is the reality. It
might upset some folks, but that is just the reality of electric
vehicles.
Even if we were to go to a 100 percent renewable clean energy for all
of our energy needs, even if we were to cede that part of the argument,
you still need petrochemicals. You still need oil and gas for
petrochemicals that we use for everything.
If you are one of the individuals who is lucky enough to earn over
$100,000 a year and can afford a Tesla, I want you to look at the
dashboard on your Tesla and thank an American fracker because I can
guarantee you that dashboard is not made with hemp. It is made of
petrochemicals.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Takano).
Mr. TAKANO. Madam Speaker, I thank my fellow Californian for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the INVEST in America Act, a $547
billion infrastructure bill that will invest in communities across the
country.
This bold piece of legislation includes $20 million in contract
authority to fund the I-15 northern extension project in my own
community in Riverside County.
This investment will create jobs in the Inland Empire; it will meet
our basic infrastructure needs; and it will improve our freeways and
better connect our region.
The INVEST in America Act will put us on the path to finally
modernizing

[[Page H3322]]

our Nation's roads, bridges, rails, and water systems, while keeping in
mind the urgency to fight climate change.
I do not hear from my colleagues across the aisle language that
speaks to the future; I hear language instead that clings to the past.
On this side of the aisle, we speak about a transition to a cleaner,
more green future.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and invest in our
communities.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Madam Speaker, once again, Democrats are bringing a hyperpartisan
bill to the floor. They are blocking Republican efforts to actually
improve measures for the Americans who don't make $100,000 a year, who
can't afford a Tesla.
This is not me saying that. You can look at the numbers. You can
follow the money.
Let's just look at the numbers. In 2015, when House Republicans were
in charge and had another package that was an infrastructure package,
30 percent of the amendments were Democrat amendments. This time, only
18 percent of the amendments are Republican amendments. Clearly, this
is far from a bipartisan bill.
Follow the money. It is no surprise that, under this bill,
congressional districts in blue States would get almost double the
funding for transportation projects compared to districts in red
States.
Madam Speaker, while liberals and progressives push the Green New
Deal fantasy on Americans, and while we do things like define art as
infrastructure, House Republicans will continue to fight for investment
in roads, bridges, and real transportation that will help real
Americans and drive our economy.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question and vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I want to thank my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania. I do
appreciate his comments about my personal health and also his
collegiality.
His comments about being bipartisan, I completely agree with. But
compromise requires, from my perspective--and granted, we do have a
different perspective about how we get there and who is giving and how
much is given.
I really think this bill is an incredibly important bill for the
future of America and American workers and innovation.
As far as changing to renewables and alternatives, that electrical
system has to be upgraded. We have seen what has happened because of
climate change in the Gulf. We see the struggles we have on the West
Coast with fires, all because, as evidence-based research tells us,
what we have done with the environment and the benefits we have gotten
from fossil fuels over the course of the last decades and century.
But now is the time to change and prepare for that change--not
mindlessly. This isn't a radical proposal. This is about preparing for
the future.
In terms of the infrastructure that gets those new alternative fuels,
hydrogen fuel cell cars, battery electric cars, in California, we have
acknowledged that we need to get these cars to be available to
everyone, including people from disadvantaged communities. That is why
we have changed the tax code to make it easier for everyone to get an
alternative fuel car, not just wealthy people, and get the benefits of
that.
I want to read a quote from Forbes magazine about infrastructure and
electric cars: ``These vehicles use a different kind of fuel and plug
into our electricity system, and the good news about that is there are
a number of cost-benefit studies,'' numerous ones, ``that are showing
this can be really beneficial to all ratepayers, not just the drivers
of the vehicles.''

The critical mass of changing helps everybody. It brings down the
cost of energy. So, for those rising costs at the pump, there is a bend
in the arc that will come sooner rather than later that will help
everyone, as opposed to the opinions by my colleague and some of his
other speakers today.
Matt Stanberry, the managing director for the advanced transportation
program at the trade group Advanced Energy Economy, says: ``As you
increase electricity sales for charging the vehicles, it has the effect
of driving down rates for all ratepayers because it spreads the fixed
cost of the system out across a larger volume of sales.''
Madam Speaker, this is about preparing for this new energy future.
Whoever gets there first, as a country, as always in our history, has a
predominant role in foreign affairs and the leadership on this globe.
The Chinese are trying to beat us to that. We can't let that happen. We
talk about global competitiveness. We need to get the infrastructure
in. Yes, they need to do a better job at reducing pollution,
traditional pollutants and carbon.
The Clean Air Act, originally signed by Richard Nixon, and then
changed and amended by Ronald Reagan, two Republicans, and the waiver
that, unfortunately, previous administrations gave to California
through multiple generations, have fueled, pardon the expression, the
benefits we have gotten in public health and traditional pollutants. It
is fueling today the States that join California, like Colorado, which
are pushing this innovation.
Madam Speaker, this is about the future of America and America's
excellence and its energy independence and its workforce, staying at
home and providing for this energy independence for future generations.
Madam Speaker, in a moment, I will offer an amendment to the rule to
make in order the amendment offered by Ms. Slotkin, which amends the
underlying bill to prohibit using transit funds for artwork and
nonfunctional landscaping.

Amendment Offered by Mr. DeSaulnier

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution or House Resolution 504, the amendment specified
in section 7 shall be in order as though printed as the last
amendment in House Report 117-75 is offered by Representative
Slotkin or a designee. That amendment shall be debatable for
10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent.
Sec. 7. The amendment referred to in section 6 is as
follows:
Page 722, strike lines 1 through 5 (and redesignate
accordingly).

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as
follows:

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 751) to prohibit a moratorium on the use of
hydraulic fracturing. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural
Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 751.

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and I move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the resolution and the amendment thereto.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
are postponed.

____________________