Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1629) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to limitations on exclusive approval or licensure of orphan drugs, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 275) condemning the horrific shootings in Atlanta, Georgia, on March 16, 2021, and reaffirming the House of Representative's commitment to combating hate, bigotry, and violence against the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community; and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 508 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

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

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and the resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 403 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), 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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 403, providing for consideration of H.R. 1629, the Fairness in Orphan Drug Exclusivity Act, under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It also provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H. Res. 275, the condemning the horrific shootings in Atlanta, Georgia, on March 16, 2021, and reaffirming the House of Representatives' commitment to combating hate, bigotry, and violence against the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community, under a closed rule.

It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.

The rule deems as passed H. Res. 398, a resolution recognizing the forthcoming centennial of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre.

The rule amends H.R. 188 to provide recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority through July 1, 2021.

Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested rollcall votes on suspension bills considered on May 17 or 18. This authority lasts through May 20.

Madam Speaker, we are here today to consider two timely and important bills. The first is a resolution from our colleague, Congresswoman Judy Chu, condemning the horrific, shootings, in Atlanta, Georgia, in March, and confirming the House of Representatives' commitment to combating hate and violence against the Asian-American and Pacific Islander community.

I want to start by offering my condolences, prayers, and support for the family and friends of the eight people murdered in Atlanta on March 16 and the thousands of Asian Americans who have been physically or verbally attacked over the course of the pandemic.

The horrific act of gun violence that took eight lives in Atlanta, including six Asian women, is a tragedy unambiguously rooted in hate. It is a tragedy that followed 4,000 reported hate crimes against Asian Americans over the past year, and it is a tragedy that followed decades of bigotry, discrimination, and indifference toward the AAPI community.

We must recognize that physical and verbal attacks against people of Asian descent are not a new phenomenon and that our country has a shameful past of violence and discrimination directed against Asian Americans. From the Chinese Exclusion Act to the internment of Japanese Americans, to the innumerable acts of individual violence that have cost so many their lives or livelihoods, a vile and persistent racism has denied many people the basic safeties and individual freedoms that some others take for granted.

But we also need to recognize that at a time when we are all dealing with the hardships caused by the pandemic, Asian Americans have had to deal with additional pain, fear, and loss brought on by the callous and careless rhetoric of opportunistic politicians and bigots. I have heard from my constituents and staff members in my office about the pain that the increase in verbal and physical attacks has caused throughout our community.

I admire the incredible work being done by AAPI advocates and organizers in southeastern Pennsylvania and across the Nation to bring attention to anti-Asian discrimination and to call for change. Groups in my district, such as Asian Americans United, Cambodian Association of Greater Philadelphia, Laos In The House, VietLead, and others across the United States, have mobilized whole communities to come together and stand firm against hate and racism.

The anti-hate rallies and vigils organized in response to this year's shocking attacks are a resounding reminder that hate is not welcome in our cities and towns, but also that standing up to hatred requires more than just thoughts and prayers. It requires all of us to recognize and call out racism when we see it, to work with our neighbors to protect everyone in our communities, and to lift up voices that aren't always heard.

As we continue to confront the systemic racism that plagues so much of our culture, the passage of this resolution by the House must be part of a greater holistic effort to provide all Americans with prosperity, justice, and freedom from fear.

Congress cannot keep waiting for problems to boil over in order to do something about them. I ask that all of my colleagues keep that in mind as we work to address systemic racism and the other pressing problems of our day.

I thank Congresswoman Chu for her leadership, and I thank her and the

members of the Georgia delegation for introducing this important resolution.

Madam Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 1629, the Fairness in Orphan Drug Exclusivity Act. This bill is sponsored by my good friend and colleague from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Congresswoman Dean, who has bravely shared her family's experience with the hardships caused by substance use disorder, and who has been a tireless advocate for Federal solutions to the opioid epidemic.

This much-needed bill would close a loophole in our Federal drug approval laws, promoting greater competition and lower prices and allowing more medications to treat opioid use disorder, as well as other diseases, to come to market. Closing this loophole would increase access to low-cost treatments and would prevent pharmaceutical companies from abusing the current law to boost drug prices for medications that could be sold by competitors at much lower prices.

In particular, this bill would reduce the price of buprenorphine, a drug that is critically important for medically assisted treatment, or MAT, of opioid abuse disorder, but which has been made more costly and less available due to abuse of the current laws.

The opioid epidemic has devastated families in my district and across the country. Too many communities have experienced the terrible toll of opioid addiction, and I am glad this is an issue on which Democrats and Republicans have been able to work together and achieve real results for the American people.

Since 2018, Congress has been able to pass multiple bipartisan bills to increase funding for substance use disorder, provide more treatments and medications for those suffering from opioid addiction, and improve access to mental health services.

The Fairness in Orphan Drug Exclusivity Act is a straightforward bill with bipartisan support and sponsorship that passed the House of Representatives last Congress, and it was on track to pass this Congress last week before inexplicably being derailed when one of its former sponsors whipped votes against it.

I thank my Pennsylvania colleagues, Representatives Dean and Fitzpatrick, for their bipartisan leadership on this bill, which is so important, not just for Pennsylvanians, but for families across this country who have struggled to obtain effective and affordable treatment for loved ones suffering from substance use disorder. I urge its prompt passage.

Lastly, I want to voice my support for H. Res. 398, a resolution introduced by Congresswoman Jackson Lee to recognize the forthcoming centennial of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. This event was one of the most abhorrent instances of racial violence in our Nation's history, and it is history that we should not ignore or forget.

With this resolution, we can at least recognize the people, families, and descendants irreparably harmed that day, even if we cannot give them the justice they deserved.

I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Jackson Lee, for her work to bring this resolution to the floor and to ensure that we recognize this terrible moment in our collective past.

I thank all of my colleagues who helped craft the bills we are considering today. I look forward to supporting this rule, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, like many, I am so excited to see our country begin to unwind many of the COVID-19 precautions of the last year, but we are not in the clear yet.

It is no secret that many Members of this body have refused to be vaccinated, and many of the same Members have also shown repeated disregard for the dangers posed by the pandemic. We need to extend certain measures in the House to provide the House with flexibility to ensure that Congress can expeditiously respond to the future needs created by the pandemic and the economy and to keep all of those who serve here safe.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleagues, I must respectfully decline to chase the red herring that has been lobbed onto the House floor.

A vote on the PQ is strictly a procedural vote to move a bill forward. And as our colleagues know, voting ``no'' would simply mean that we would hand control of the House floor to them, which I decline to do.

As our colleagues know, they are under no obligation to offer any specific amendment, even if they faithfully promise to do so. So let's not distract from the bills that we are here to move forward today.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the lead sponsor of H. Res. 398, recognizing the forthcoming centennial of the 1921 Tulsa massacre.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I wanted to mention that Senator Elizabeth Warren, a native of Oklahoma, carries the Senate version of H. Res. 398 recognizing the Tulsa centennial.

When I go home and meet with constituents, they want to know what we are doing here to make their lives better, not whether we have succeeded in obstructing the passage of necessary or popular legislation or in shutting down Congress. I suspect that is true for most Members, and I value those with whom I can work in good faith.

This Congress has already seen its fair share of parliamentary tricks to disrupt the legislative process, and I applaud the leadership's efforts to keep Members and staff safe, to advance legislation that will end the pandemic, and to serve the American people.

Let's be honest about why we are taking up floor time to debate and pass the orphan drug bill today, a bill with broad bipartisan support that passed without a single objection last term.

Last week's ``no'' vote by some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle was incredibly disrespectful to the Americans we are all here to represent. Those Members voting ``no'' effectively told their constituents that they care more about whose name goes on a bill than they care about actually passing legislation.

Like my colleagues, I am frustrated that this bill did not pass on suspension last week. The opioid epidemic is a serious issue. Families in my district and across the country know firsthand the hardships caused by opioid abuse and addiction, and this issue deserves to be taken seriously and addressed by Congress, which is why we are bringing this bill back to the floor a week after one of its former sponsors blocked its

passage because his feelings were hurt when he wasn't asked to lead the bill this term.

Our colleagues extol, when convenient, the virtues of unity and bipartisanship, but it is important for them to realize that bipartisanship relies upon trust. And in the wake of January 6, despite having witnessed the carnage created by falsehoods about the election results, the majority of our Republican colleagues voted with no evidence to cancel the electoral votes of several States.

For those of us who represent Pennsylvania, which was ground zero for those falsehoods and the efforts to undermine and overturn our electoral process, it is particularly tough to trust Members who have shown more interest in silencing those who would challenge the lies than in defending the Constitution.

It is a shame that a bipartisan bill to combat opioid abuse needs to be reconsidered under a rule, and I hope this time around my colleagues do what is right and pass the bill to improve access to low-cost medications to combat opioid addiction.

We are here to pass legislation for the American people, not to put our names on things. Stunts like what we saw last week are disrespectful to the House, to its Members, and most of all to the people we are here to represent.

I thank all of our colleagues who helped craft the bills we are considering today. I look forward to supporting this rule, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, water is certainly infrastructure. What is not is art. While the majority places restrictions on building roads--again, roads actually are infrastructure. While there are restrictions on roads, there is no restriction on using Federal transit money for art. Essentially, this bill defines art as infrastructure.

Let's talk more about roads which are, as I define, actually infrastructure.

The so-called infrastructure bill actually bans construction of new roads. The bill also prioritizes urban areas at the expense of rural and suburban communities. There are massive increases in transit and rail funding, yet, again, there are restrictions on the building

of roads--the transportation mode rural Americans use the most.

Madam Speaker, since his first day in office, President Biden has declared a war on blue-collar workers. He has also declared a war on the American energy industry. Thanks to liberal Democrats and the fantasy of the Green New Deal, energy costs for Americans are skyrocketing. It is evident at the gas pump where prices heading into the Fourth of July weekend are the highest they have been since 2014.

Now, Republicans and conservatives believe that America should be energy independent. That is good for American families, it is good for the economy, and it is certainly good for national security.

That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider Congressman Jeff Duncan's Protecting American Energy Production Act.

This legislation, which I am a proud cosponsor of, would prohibit the President from declaring a moratorium on fracking without congressional approval.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from South Carolina such additional time as he may consume.

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

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, what happened on March 16, 2021, in Atlanta is a senseless tragedy. It is an unconscionable act of irrational violence. We grieve with the victims' families, friends, and loved ones as they now must cope with this tremendous loss.

Justice must prevail, and the perpetrator must be held to account for these atrocious murders. That is why it is so very unfortunate that this resolution that we are discussing and considering tonight on the floor came on a rule when it wasn't even marked up in committee. I want to talk about the process--both the committee process and due process.

Taking the former first, the committee process, I have only spent 4 months here in Washington serving this august Chamber, but I did serve 8 years in the Texas legislature. What I noticed was nearly all legislation becomes better when it goes through the committee process.

So if this issue was so important, as my friends on the other side of the aisle state--and it should be, it is very important--then Members would have been allowed to offer amendments through the proper committee process, which might have, and most likely would have, greatly improved this resolution as it comes to the floor today and helped garner broader support.

Our aim should be to send the strongest message possible to the American people that all bigotry is to be condemned and not tolerated.

We are the most diverse nation on the face of the Earth, and our diversity is our strength. We value the priceless contribution of our American brothers and sisters of Asian descent, and that should be the point, not to make this resolution unnecessarily partisan and eventually become specious political talking points.

To the latter point, due process, this resolution threatens the rule of law by assuming facts in an individual case that have yet to be proven. There is no question that the shootings in Atlanta were horrific, but their motivation has yet to be determined under law.

While all illegal violence will and should be roundly and justifiably condemned, it is inappropriate for the House of Representatives to opine on the facts of an individual case when those facts will be decided by an impaneled jury, a jury that will hear all that evidence. A jury should not be pressured into deciding the facts one way or the other based on political spin and partisan pressure directed by this Chamber.

Do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand how this resolution could damage the ideal of legal due process by putting forth an assertion of facts before our justice system has had the ability to function?

The trial for this tragedy in Atlanta isn't over. In fact, it hasn't even started yet. This resolution sets a dangerous precedent at this time the way it is written. It is a possibly reckless path to embark down for such an important legislative body as the United States House of Representatives.

While this resolution threatens some political theater, it is remarkable also for what it seems to be conveniently omitting from this resolution addressing anti-Asian bias.

House Democrats have left out the many ongoing and high-profile lawsuits filed by Asian Americans alleging anti-Asian discrimination in schools' and universities' admissions policies.

So why would our friends across the aisle ignore these allegations in this resolution?

At the same time, this resolution includes the strange statement that references the Wuhan virus as anti-Asian. There are other elements that are clearly anti-Asian that are in this resolution, and should be. But the Wuhan virus is where this virus originated.

Historically, viruses are often named for their place of origin. A case in point is the West Nile virus. It wasn't in Montana. It was in the West Nile district of Uganda.

Zika was named after the Zika Forest in Uganda. Ebola was named after the Ebola River in Zaire, in central Africa.

Here in America, we have the Rocky Mountain spotted fever named after a big mountain chain in the West. A disease in my native New England, Lyme disease, was found in Old Lyme, Connecticut.

So is that going to be geographically prejudiced?

Of course not.

There are no resolutions condemning the use of the words Ebola, Zika, or West Nile. So not only have we not seen resolutions condemning these names, they have also been embodied in the United States Code many times in reference to the very diseases being combated. It is just descriptive. It is not insulting by any stretch.

I could go on, but I think the point is made.

We should be more cautious in this legislative body with the statements we pass as certainty and the procedural precedents we set forth in the context of the judicial system. We should be focused on allowing the due process to play out with justice served, and continue to condemn vile and evil acts of violence against all Americans.

We should say this to our brothers and sisters of Asian descent: We appreciate you, we respect you, we love you, and we grieve with you.

When you break down Americans demographically, Asian Americans are a successful group in our country. Asian Americans, in their journey, epitomize the promise of America.

I thought it was interesting, the U.S. Census Bureau in 2019, the median household income for Asian Americans was $98,174 compared to, for all Americans, $68,703. That is 43 percent higher.

The history of the Asian-American journey is one of prosperity, hope, and promise fulfilled. Our Asian-American brothers and sisters should be congratulated, admired, and emulated.

Our hearts go out to the families of the victims.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My colleague just mentioned that it must be nice to be born male and White. I was born both, and I didn't choose it. That is the way it happened. And then he went on to say: Must be nice that no one has ever attacked you because you are male and White.

That is an interesting comment because I have a dear friend who was beaten to within an inch of his life in a section of town that was right outside of Duke University, and he was beaten primarily because he didn't ``belong in that neighborhood.'' And do you know who is at fault for that? The very people who beat him. No one else. Unfortunately, hate occasionally fills all hearts, regardless of someone's shape, size, or shade.

And that comment in and of itself was divisive. On this solemn occasion, when we are discussing condemning hate, I just find that unfortunate and disturbing, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that no one, no American, should live in fear, Asian American, African American, European American, Hispanic American, or otherwise. No one. Because if you are not safe, then you are not free.

That is what we are here for, to guarantee equal protection under the law. Safety and freedom are our most solemn tasks while serving in this Chamber.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I will close with a statement of principle that no House resolution can come close to matching in its compelling moral clarity. It is the statement of one of the greatest Americans who ever lived, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I will be honest, it gave me goose bumps as a child and it gives me goose bumps every time I hear it or if I say it.

To quote this great man: ``I have a dream my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.''

Asian Americans certainly have demonstrated great character with their numerous and countless contributions to this American experiment.

We all mourn the victims of this attack, including the family members and community they leave behind.

I join my colleagues in seeking the fullest expression of justice that our system is designed to deliver.

That gets back to culture, the culture of this Chamber. Sometimes you hear from the mouth of babes. Well, I am a rookie and a freshman. I have only been here 4 months. This is the most hyperpartisan legislative body in this country, and it is awful. I am not saying that my party may not have done something similar in the past. I don't know; I wasn't here.

I served in the Texas Legislature, both the House and the Senate, and I was very proud of the fact that almost 99 percent of the things we passed in that body had at least some bipartisan support because we worked together, for the betterment of our State, to make Texas better.

Why can't we do that here, for the betterment of our country?

Not everything has to be partisan. I know it is now, but it doesn't have to be. We need to work together to change that culture.

I am a back-benching freshman. I don't have a lot of say. My voice isn't really heard here yet. That is okay. But if there is ever a day where it is, I pledge to do everything I can to work, when possible, on a bipartisan basis because it is better for this country.

We don't always have to score cheap political points, looking down the road for the next fundraiser or the next election. We can really do what is best for the country. Not red America, not blue America. America.

We had that opportunity here with this resolution. It could have been written if we had the committee process. The minority party could have contributed to it. We could have worked together on it. We could have pretty much guaranteed a 435-to-nothing vote. Because, at the end of the day, what I can recall in the Rules Committee was talking about sending a strong message that hate will not be tolerated, bigotry will not be tolerated.

Yes, this country has had an ugly past. It disgusts me. But when you are raised the right way, you see it for what it is: evil, unacceptable.

We are the greatest country history has ever known. By working together, we can ensure that our children and their children enjoy the fruits and the benefits and the labor and the bounty of this country. I wish that were the case with this resolution, because it could have been.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the manager for her leadership. I also thank all of those on the floor who understand the indignity of massacres, racism, and devastating histories that our country has faced.

We, too, are Americans, and I love this country.

Last night, on the floor of the House, I said that, as a young girl, I knew about the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria; I knew about Columbus and Abraham Lincoln and George Washington. And that was well, though, obviously, there are challenges to that history, even today. That is what we knew. But we did not know the history--the slave history or even the fact that there was something called Tulsa, Oklahoma, a bright and shining star of economic opportunity.

This picture shows young girls dancing in a parade, just like today, with cowboy hats on, the high school dance team, if you will. None of that was taught to any of us, this prosperous place.

And then a community known as Greenwood, in June of 1921, after a series of heinous events that nearly entirely destroyed Greenwood. We knew nothing about this. A hundred years; three living descendants. We will be on our way.

I thank the Congressional Black Caucus for championing this with me, and Chairwoman Beatty for understanding the validity of telling the truth.

In this story, they saw men, women, and children driven like cattle, huddled like horses, and treated like beasts. I saw hundreds--this is a testimony--of men march through the main business section with their hats off, their hands up, with dozens of guards marching them with guns and cursing them from everything mentionable. Three hundred of them died, and are buried in unmarked graves. They were murdered.

The attackers looted and intentionally burned an estimated 1,256 homes in Greenwood, America's Black Wall Street, along with nearly all of the district's churches, schools, and businesses.

When others began to say, ``Pull yourself up by your bootstraps,'' these freed slaves, for barely 100 years, developed Greenwood.

Yet this is what happened. This is the body of a charred Negro killed in the riot.

How many were like that?

As I said, the death toll came about because something happened in an elevator, a word, something like Emmett Till said to a White woman. In a firestorm of hatred and violence, that is perhaps unequal in peacetime in the history of the United States, the White mob destroyed almost 40 square blocks, left almost 9,000 Greenwood district residents homeless.

So this is a story from 100 years ago. Look at the smoke coming from the buildings that were industries. People had ice cream parlors, restaurants, and boarding houses burned to the ground.

We come today to say, the burned-out ruins of Greenwood--there is one door left in Tulsa, to be able to embrace those from Tulsa, Oklahoma. They will be here tomorrow for a hearing in the Judiciary Committee. I am honored this legislation will honor them.

Madam Speaker, we will know and history will tell us that embedded in the annals of the Congressional Record will be H. Res. 398 that talks about that story.

Yet we rise above that, not so much to ignore it, but we ask that we condemn the violence in this resolution. We ask for rejection and active opposition to the false ideology of white supremacy. We ask for tolerance and unity. We ask and are calling upon Americans to celebrate ethnic, racial, and religious diversity.

We, too, mourn those who were killed in Atlanta for Asian hate. It says, encouraging all persons in the United States to reflect upon all of our history. Yes, we can rise above it, but we must know that the stories that are told say that Tulsa must have some repair, some say reparations.

Finally, as I close, we hear a testimony from the great-granddaughter of Howard and Harriet Ector. They were builders and pillars of Black Wall Street. They were featured in the Smithsonian. As a little girl, their great-great-granddaughter was saved by hiding in a chicken coop at age 9 to dodge bullets. It was a race war. We should not ignore our differences, but we should be unified by who we are.

I am delighted to support this resolution, and I ask my colleagues to vote for it.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a report by the Oklahoma Commission to Study the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921.

1921 Tulsa Race Massacre Factsheet

Source--Tulsa Race Riot: A Report by the Oklahoma Commission to Study

the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921, Feb. 28, 2001

Following World War I, Tulsa, Oklahoma was recognized

nationally for its affluent African American community known

as the Greenwood District. This thriving business district

and surrounding residential area was referred to as ``Black

Wall Street.'' In June 1921, a series of heinous events

nearly destroyed the entire Greenwood area.

``I saw men, women and children driven like cattle, huddled

like horses and treated like beasts. Thus, I fully realized

the attitude of the Southern white man when he has you

bested. I saw hundreds of men marched

through the main business section of ``White Town'' with

their hats off and their hands up, with dozens of guards

marching them with guns, cursing them for everything

mentionable. I saw large trucks following up the invaders, as

they ran the colored people from their homes and places of

business. Everything of value was loaded on these trucks and

everything left was burned to ashes. I saw machine guns

turned on the colored men to oust them from their

stronghold.'' --Anonymous primary source

Starting late on the evening on May 31 and continuing into

the day of June 1, 1921, a White mob attacked the Greenwood

district of Tulsa, Oklahoma, razing it to the ground. The

attackers looted and intentionally burned an estimated 1,256

homes in Greenwood--America's ``Black Wall Street''--along

with nearly all the district's churches, schools, and

businesses.

The number of persons killed in the riot may never be

known, but a 2001 report by a commission created by the

Oklahoma legislature estimated, based on available evidence

at that time, that at least 75 to 100 people died in the

Massacre, and found that one credible contemporary source

estimated the death toll at 300 people. All told, in what the

late historian and Tulsa survivor John Hope Franklin

described as a ``firestorm of hatred and violence that is

perhaps unequaled in the peace time history of the United

States,'' the White mob destroyed almost forty-square-blocks

and left almost 9,000 Greenwood district residents homeless.

As the White invaders moved through the district, a violent

pattern of murder, looting, and arson emerged. Armed Whites

would force Black residents from their homes or businesses

where they were held at ``a growing number of internment

centers,'' loot what valuables or furnishings they could

carry, and then torch the structure. They summarily shot any

Black men found in a home with a firearm as well as anyone

else who resisted. This pattern was repeated, ``[h]ouse by

house, block after block'' until all of the city's Black

neighborhoods were engulfed in flames.

Whites engaged in the attack also committed numerous other

atrocities. According to one Black eyewitness, White looters

murdered a Black elderly disabled man who, despite having

expressed a willingness to do so, could not comply with their

order to leave his home. According to one White eyewitness,

prominent Black surgeon Dr. A.C. Jackson was gunned down on

his front lawn with his hands up after attempting to comply

with the White rioters. Another Black eyewitness recounted

how he and 30 or 40 other men who had surrendered to the

rioters were lined up and forced to run with hands over their

heads to an interment center located at Convention Hall, all

while some of their White captors shot at their heels with

guns. A group of White men even ran a car into the group,

knocking over two or three of their number. In another

horrifying display of brutality, a Black disabled homeless

man was tied by his leg to a car and dragged by ``white

thugs'' through the streets of the downtown business district

where he panhandled.

While some might attribute these atrocities to the actions

of a few ``rogue'' officers, the ``official'' police response

to the violence also appears to have been, at best, mired in

confusion and, at worst, to have reflected unfounded racial

fears of a so-called ``Negro uprising.'' Responding to the

baseless rumors that Blacks were coming from outside of town,

the police chief ordered roughly one-fifth of the officers on

duty to setup checkpoints on various roads leading into the

city, and at the railroad station, wasting precious manpower

that could have been used elsewhere to prevent the violence

and destruction.

Following the Massacre, local authorities did less than

nothing to provide justice for the many Black victims.

Thousands of Black residents remained in internment camps in

the days immediately following the Massacre.

Local officials actively sought to hinder the Black

community's rebuilding efforts. Within a week of the

Massacre, the Tulsa City Commission passed a fire ordinance

aimed at preventing Black Tulsans from rebuilding the

Greenwood commercial district where it originally stood, and

the so-called Reconstruction Commission established by White

business and political leaders batted away offers of outside

aid. Black Tulsans successfully challenged the ordinance,

which was later struck down as unconstitutional by the

Oklahoma Supreme Court, and managed to rebuild at least parts

of the community where it once stood. Many other Black

residents left homeless or rightfully feeling fearful and

unwelcome left Tulsa. Thousands of survivors were likely

traumatized by the violence they witnessed or experienced in

the Massacre.

The Massacre also destroyed millions of dollars in Black-

owned property. The 2001 commission also estimated the

property damage at 17 million in 1999 dollars, which would be

more than 25 million today. Another source estimates the

total value of the property destroyed at between 50 and 100

million in today's dollars.