[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     be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question 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.

                          ____________________