Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The legislation we are debating today is the product of months of partisan games and agendas. Rather than coming to the table for good faith negotiations, the Democrats crafted a plan to pass their progressive policies and socialist human infrastructure programs.

Americans understand the need for real infrastructure investment. They are asking Congress to modernize our roads, bridges, water systems, and rural broadband.

We had an opportunity to do just that, but my colleagues on the left insisted on using the true infrastructure needs of Americans as a bargaining chip for their irresponsible spending spree.

On the floor today is $1.2 trillion toward a wish list of Green New Deal policies that perpetually leave rural America behind. It favors transportation modes that Americans aren't using, including $66 billion for passenger rail like Amtrak, and fails to include the Republican cost-cutting proposals like reforming the NEPA process.

This will be followed by another $3\1/2\ trillion check, piling onto the rapidly increasing national debt and resulting inflation.

At the end of this week, we are facing significant deadlines for funding the government and surface transportation. We have known these deadlines were coming for months, yet Democrats have pushed us to the wire, doing exactly what we know Americans hate: forcing a vote on sweeping legislation and outrageous spending in the final hours.

I will be voting against this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, today, we are debating a partisan bill that spends over $400 billion on everything but long-term investments in America's roads and bridges.

Despite being the largest percentage increase in surface transportation programs in the last quarter-century, very little of the money going out the door is directed at the policies, programs, and people that need it.

It ignores the need to streamline our project review process, creates more bureaucratic red tape, and, once again, leaves rural America behind.

A focus on the rail title, for example, reveals complete ignorance of the industry. Freight railroads are the most fuel-efficient way to move freight over land, covering more than 480 miles on a single gallon of fuel. Yet, my colleagues on the left included section 9607 that would require Class I freight railroads to replace locomotives constructed prior to 2008 with brand-new fossil-fuel-burning locomotives by 2030.

This ignores the significant efforts of the Class I freight railroads themselves to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and combat climate change. It locks the industry into utilizing internal combustion engines for decades, negating the ongoing efforts with suppliers to research, test, and adapt zero-emission locomotives for future incorporation into their fleets.

This section alone would cost the industry tens of billions of dollars and, needless to say, was written without the consultation of the railroads or stakeholders.

This is just one of the many examples in this partisan bill of the significant disconnect between constituents and the majority's Green New Deal agenda. We have a bill that cares more about appeasing the climate lobby than fixing the cracks in our bridges.

I cannot support this legislation today. Instead, I will continue working with my colleagues who are serious about addressing American transportation and infrastructure, and I encourage everyone to do the same thing.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a lot to unpack in that statement right there. Let me start with section 1201 of H.R. 3684, which basically requires States to prioritize the state of good repair for their roads over constructing new capacity.

Well, it is almost impossible to achieve a state of good repair when new capacity is necessary to achieve that state of good repair. You are telling States they can't do that, exercising more Federal control over the States.

It would greatly limit the State's jurisdiction over their own roads. Each State has unique transportation systems with needs that vary greatly, and their decisions to expand highway capacity should be made by them and not in a vacuum, certainly not here in Washington, D.C. DOTs must consider everything, from balancing loan service to asset management.

Section 1201 is an attempt by the Federal Government to identify the needs of States for them and direct their policies rather than promoting State flexibility. This section would limit the scope of good-paying construction projects and jobs for our constituents. It disproportionately affects rural and suburban communities, mind you, where new capacity is often needed far more than repairs.

As I mentioned before, Washington cannot and should not try to dictate every need of the road systems State by State when the individuals who understand those roads are the best ones to make that decision. They are the ones who are driving on them every single day.

Instead, Congress should focus our efforts on empowering States to build the transportation systems their communities need rather than create more bureaucratic hurdles.

It is interesting to note the comments about electric vehicles in China. I don't think we should emulate China in any way, shape, or form, number one. Number two, I am curious to note how those electric vehicles are powered: by coal-fired power plants. Then, we have the conversation about the Paris climate accord and who is emitting the most carbon.

I don't know how you expect to power all these electric vehicles just by plugging into the wall. Power has to come from somewhere. You are against nuclear. We are shuttering coal-fired plants. I would ask for some suggestions on that, but I don't see any realistic ones coming from the other side.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

Madam Speaker, the gentleman's comments were dangerously close to what I would consider disparaging, and I would bring that to your attention.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Madam Speaker, before I yield to my distinguished colleague from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), it is my understanding that we are to address our comments to the Chair and not to each other.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to urge a vote against this en bloc. This en bloc contains 8 percent of the total amendments that Republicans were allowed to offer in this process.

To me it is amazing that this bill prioritizes things like artwork in rail terminals. I heard the chairman say earlier that, look, in Russia, they have chandeliers hanging in their rail stations. So I am not sure that we necessarily need to emulate Russian infrastructure, particularly focusing our hard-earned taxpayer dollars on hanging chandeliers and other artwork that the chairman categorizes as art infrastructure. I don't consider art infrastructure. I don't think my constituents would either.

Our infrastructure is crumbling. I live in a district that is connected to Tennessee via the I-40 bridge, a glaring example of where we need to be placing our infrastructure dollars. That bridge was shut down just about 6 weeks ago for structural deficiencies.

Ironically, we have two bridges connecting Arkansas and Tennessee. They are in Memphis and West Memphis, Arkansas. One bridge which was built in 1969, we refer to it as the ``new bridge.'' That is how old it is.

Thankfully, those structural defects were found in time. But the majority is proposing to waste some of the billions of dollars on infrastructure on art--and without any way to pay for it after sending $70 billion to transit agencies over the last year to support them through the pandemic. But now the majority thinks we should be allowing these same agencies to divert Federal resources for art and that it is okay to use that money for paintings and whatever else you might consider.

If you vote against this amendment, your vote says that you believe that art is infrastructure, Mr. Speaker, and that we should send taxpayer dollars to support infrastructure dollars as art. It is as simple as that.

Our limited transportation resources need to be invested in rebuilding our communities' roads and bridges.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this en bloc amendment No. 3, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I claim the time in opposition to this en bloc of amendments.

Again, this bill is nothing more than a partisan exercise, and this en bloc just throws together, again, a bunch of bad ideas with little opportunity for input or debate.

Nothing further proves that point than the disproportionate amount of Democrat amendments we will be considering today, many of which will not be subjected to the scrutiny of standalone votes or debate.

Over 100 Democrat amendments have been approved by the Rules Committee while less than 30 Republican amendments have been made in order.

Unfortunately, this is not just about the terrible legislative process--it is also about the policy which moves forward with no pay- for in sight. This is completely unacceptable.

Members should not be forced to choose between voting on a bill that just burdens future generations of Americans with more debt and greater dependence on China or passing another short-term surface extension. But those are the two options presented to us by the majority here today.

What we are looking at is a bill with policies that prevent rural communities from growing and that raises inflation so average Americans will continue to see rising prices in everyday products like milk and gas.

I had hoped we wouldn't make this bad bill even worse, but this en bloc only adds more spending and more bad policies.

This bill is over 1,600 pages and over 230 amendments were filed by Members on both sides. But we are going to spend less than 12 hours working through amendments and debate to rush to an inevitable partisan vote.

This is not a process anyone should be proud of and very indicative of how we got here today: just a one-sided, my-way-or-the-highway approach.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this en bloc amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Again, just as a reminder for the many of the tens of people who are watching at home, this en bloc amendment contains 38 Democrat amendments. In contrast to the en bloc No. 3 that we just considered that contained all of the Republican amendments, only 19 were considered there. So that represents, again, 8 percent of the total number of amendments that were made in order.

And there are a good number of these amendments, by the way, that are offered by Members on the committee. In fact, I mean, there are an awful lot of them. And it just underscores how this process has been so flawed and so ill-conceived.

Back in the not-too-distant past--I have been on this committee now for 11 years--we would bring a bill to committee to mark up, and it was agreed upon by the four principals of the committee. And the amendments would be agreed upon by the four principals of the committee, and that is how we achieved bipartisanship. Those days, apparently, are gone.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time?

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

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

American demand for high-speed rail is low; and Federal money for transportation must be spent on projects and infrastructure that Americans need and use.

The issue is not whether America must lead the world in high-speed rail, but whether Americans actually want high-speed rail.

In California, the high-speed rail project launched in 2008 has been continually plagued by cost increases and delays. According to the L.A. Times, costs have gone from $33 billion to over $100 billion, and it is at least 12 years behind schedule.

These projects inevitably result in environmental and endangered species concerns, eminent domain fights, potential displacement of families and businesses, including in low-income communities, and highly questionable demand that will leave these railroads dependent on government subsidies forever.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I will try to only use 6 of those 7 minutes.

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

This bill contains--tons of money just won't matter if we fail to support programs for roads and bridges. The huge funding levels aren't what they appear to be because the bill spreads the dollars thin over 41 new programs; adds many new burdensome mandates to programs that States rely on; doesn't include meaningful regulatory reforms so dollars are used more effectively.

Instead of getting money to States quickly so they can use it how they need, the majority adds new restrictions, like prohibiting new highway capacity that would hamper States' ability to build the projects that their communities need.

Really, this is the wrong time for this big, drastic change. This bill wants

to force Americans off the roads and into transit and passenger rail. But the central planning push couldn't come at a worse time because of the pandemic-related uncertainty and ongoing changes in transportation, work, and living patterns that will last for years to come.

Even before the pandemic, 85 percent of Americans traveled to work in a car, truck, or van, and only 5 percent used public transportation. But the majority chose to bankrupt the programs the overwhelming majority of Americans rely on.

As employers are becoming more flexible with teleworking, the majority believes we should be less flexible with our State and local partners. We should focus on core infrastructure and proven programs that provide for flexibility instead of dictating a one-size-fits-all progressive idea of what transportation should look like.

The majority calls this is a transformative bill. Well, the American people can be assured they will see the price of gas and goods transform upwards with the increasing inflation this unpaid-for bill will drive.

We just heard 38 amendments and not a single reference to how any of those would be paid for. In fact, there is not any pay-for in this entire bill. Any argument that we don't want to work with the majority is just simply false.

In addition to the strong resiliency title in Republican bill STARTER Act 2.0, I frequently said I was willing to work with the majority. And the ranking member said that he wanted to work with the majority on their priority of reducing transportation's impact on the environment, but that we also needed to work to address Republican priorities like streamlining. They simply refused.

In committee, we proposed compromises that would include both climate and streamlining provisions and offered a ``Buy American'' amendment to ensure we weren't sending U.S. dollars for electric vehicle infrastructure to support the Chinese Government's slave labor and environmental destruction. The majority rejected those proposals. Instead, House Democrats are willing to sell out to China to claim they are reaching their climate goals.

Republican Members are not willing to ignore the fact that relying on China, the worst polluter in the world, will absolutely increase global emissions.

Furthermore, we have to remember this is a transportation bill, first and foremost. Spending $1 out of every $2 on meeting Green New Deal objectives begs the question: Is this bill still a transportation bill?

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this en bloc amendment, I urge a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill, and I yield the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to inform the House I hereby remove my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 2091.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. As a veteran, and as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I have had the privilege of seeing firsthand how intelligence supports U.S. foreign policy abroad and just how important our allies are when fighting our adversaries.

Intelligence sharing relationships act as a force multiplier, ensuring the security of the United States and our allies. As we have seen time and time again, restricting such critical information sharing results in disastrous repercussions.

Even as we debate this amendment, our strategic partners, such as Saudi Arabia, have civilian targets that are being attacked by Iran- backed Houthi rebels. These same Iran-supported rebels pose a threat to U.S. military personnel in the region.

Yesterday, this body debated an amendment tasking the ODNI to provide an annual report on civilian casualties.

You know what helps minimize civilian casualties? Intelligence. Intelligence helps ensure that the correct targets are hit, while minimizing collateral damage.

I am gravely concerned with the dangerous long-term implications of this ill-advised amendment. For this reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.

Madam Speaker, on Thursday, May 2, 2019 I was inadvertently detained on Roll Call Votes 175 through 184. Had I been present to vote, I would have voted in the following manner: No on roll Call No. 175; Yes on Roll Call Vote 176; Yes on Roll Call Vote 177; No on Roll Call Vote 178; Yes on Roll Call Vote 179; No on Roll Call Vote 180; No on Roll Call Vote 181; No on Roll Call Vote 182; Yes on Roll Call Vote 183; and No on Roll Call Vote 184.

Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to mourn the loss of an explosive ordnance disposal warrior.

On Friday, March 22, EOD Sergeant Joey Collette was killed in action in Afghanistan. At the time, Collette was participating in a joint U.S.-Afghan special operation.

Sergeant Collette deeply wanted to deploy overseas. He did all he could and gave his all to serve his country in Afghanistan. He was loved and respected by his brothers in arms.

He is survived by his wife, Caela, whom he had married only 2 weeks prior to deploying, and by his beautiful young daughter.

I offer my most sincere condolences to Joey's family and friends. I ask the rest of Congress to join me in ensuring that Sergeant Joey Collette and his sacrifice will not be forgotten.

Rest in peace, Sergeant Collette.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for his leadership on this issue.

Madam Speaker, today the House will vote on whether or not to override the President's veto preserving the emergency declaration regarding the ongoing crisis at the southern border, and I am glad we finally acknowledged on a bipartisan basis that there is, in fact, a crisis on the southern border. My friend from Oregon mentioned that this humanitarian crisis exists, and I couldn't agree more.

There is also another crisis at the border. There has been a 295 percent increase in apprehensions of illegal immigrants crossing our southwest border from beyond Mexico--particularly Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador--over the last 10 years, roughly. There have been 266 arrests of criminal aliens in the last 2 fiscal years alone, and these include criminal aliens charged or convicted of assaults, sex crimes, and killings, and those are hardly victimless crimes.

In 2017, more than 70,000 Americans died of drug overdoses as methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and fentanyl are flooding across the border, and I would say that probably the families of those 70,000 would argue that we certainly do have a crisis attributed to the problems at our southern border. Since fiscal year 2012, CBP has seized more than 11 million pounds of drugs between ports of entry, that is compared with only 4 million pounds at ports of entry.

Make no mistake, there is a crisis at our southern border. Since October of last year, illegal crossings have spiked. In February alone, the month President Trump declared the emergency, 76,000 people illegally crossed the border. Just yesterday, the Border Patrol took the highly unusual step of closing inland border checkpoints in response to abnormally high apprehensions. All of this goes to show that we need a border wall.

The Customs and Border Protection Commissioner put it best when he said that this is clearly both a border security and a humanitarian crisis. The President attempted to remedy this crisis by declaring the emergency, an action well within his statutory authority and constitutional obligation to protect our country.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this veto override.

Madam Speaker, on Friday, I had a family commitment that caused me to miss votes. Had I been able to vote, I would have opposed H.R. 1.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend my alma mater, Arkansas State University, for hosting the 25th Annual College of Agriculture Agribusiness Conference. This conference focuses on farm management, commodity and credit markets, and the economics and politics of trade and farm policy.

During this conference, Chancellor Damphousse announced a $1 million gift for the College of Agriculture from the Judd Hill Foundation.

Farmers and those involved in the agriculture industry throughout Arkansas attend this meeting each year to learn about important deadlines and challenges that producers will encounter this growing season from a diverse group of speakers. This year, speakers included Tyne Morgan, host of U.S. Farm Report, as well as two of my past interns, Hunter Biram and Grant Wilson.

Instrumental to this conference's continued success has been Dr. Greenwalt, conference director and cofounder. Dr. Greenwalt, professor of agricultural economics at Arkansas State, also serves as a director of the Arkansas Agricultural Council. I had the pleasure of being one of Dr. Greenwalt's students while pursuing my degree in agricultural business at Arkansas State University.

Many others come to support this annual event. As the event grows, so does the attendance.

I would like to extend my congratulations and gratitude to Dr. Greenwalt, Dean Burcham, and everyone who contributed to the success of the ASU Agribusiness Conference for the last 25 years.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution.

When President Trump declared a national emergency, he did so in response to the ongoing humanitarian crisis at our border and with full statutory authority vested in laws passed in this very Chamber.

The majority claims that this resolution of disapproval is in response to a power grab by a President acting out of line. Yet, by merely disapproving of the emergency declaration, they are preserving his statutory powers they claim are inappropriate.

If my colleagues across the aisle are so concerned about separation of powers, why don't they simply reform the laws in title 10 and title 50 that the President is using to respond to this crisis? The answer is because this resolution is not about the division of powers; it is not even about border security. The only reason this legislation is being considered on the floor today is to obstruct the President's agenda.

The President has made it clear that he will use all statutory tools at his disposal to secure the border, and that is exactly what he is doing in declaring this emergency.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak here. I will just speak off-the-cuff. My staff wrote me a speech, but I have only 30 seconds to get this done.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you what farmers across my district say. They say that if you can get the Federal Government to relieve the regulatory burden and open up markets, we can farm in this country. We can succeed.

Mother Nature is a treacherous business partner, and so the Federal Government needs to do all that it can to

make sure that we are mitigating those uncertainties inflicted by Mother Nature that we have seen across the country this year, certainly in my district and other parts of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to lend my support to this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Conaway for his exemplary leadership. To all those who supported this effort on the House and Senate side, I thank them so much.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 50th wedding anniversary of my good friends Woody and Lynda Freeman of Jonesboro, Arkansas, two people who are true examples of commitment to the covenant of marriage.

Woody and Lynda met and started dating in the small town of Newport, Arkansas, when they were in the eighth grade. In high school, Woody was captain of the football team and Lynda was homecoming queen. Woody taught Lynda how to drive and could always make her laugh--and still does.

They eventually married in 1968 during their senior year at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. Not long after they were married, Woody, an Army second lieutenant, was deployed to Vietnam, where he was a courier for the CIA. He sent Lynda gifts and films he took of Vietnam and called whenever he could, and whenever he was on R&R in Hawaii, Lynda flew to see him.

Following Woody's return from Vietnam, the family faced hard times. It was because of their vow to each other before God that they were able to make it through their lean years, when Lynda pawned her wedding ring as Woody worked tirelessly, both doing what was needed to raise their children.

As with their marriage, they have diligently worked to make their business and family prosper. With never-yielding prayer, they have succeeded.

During their 50 years of marriage, they have experienced the joy and perseverance of unconditional love and faith in one another. For their commitment to each other, to their family, and to God, I invite my colleagues in Congress to join me in honoring their life together.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to join my colleagues in celebrating the life of Damon Nelson.

While I have only served on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for a short time, I grew to know, respect, and cherish Damon as a professional and as a friend. Our work on the committee is some of the most challenging and rewarding I have done since being elected to this body and is supported almost entirely by a loyal staff whose dedication to the American people is second to none.

As staff director, Damon set the tone and direction of committee staff who work closely with us as members and others in the House. He always greeted us with a smile and positive attitude. His leadership ensured we were fully equipped and prepared for every caucus meeting, hearing, or legislative issue. His staff saw him as a leader who wanted us to have the best, most accurate information and preparation for our work. They followed him with trust and appreciation for his approach to his work.

As you have heard, he served in the Air Force and deployed to the Persian Gulf War where he earned numerous medals. Over the following years, he moved on to serve in the Capitol here. Over the next many years, Damon moved up and eventually took the helm of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence at a tumultuous time for this Chamber and for our country. His poise, his character, his attitude, and his care for our country shined through in recent years as this committee worked on some extremely sensitive and public matters. Not once did Damon put his own interests above anyone else's. He simply sought to serve his country through his role on this committee and in this body.

Mr. Speaker, I wish him and his family the best.

Mr. Speaker, Mayor Peggy Hammack is a life-long resident of Cotter, a small town in Baxter County, with fewer than 1000 people, perhaps best known for being the trout fishing capital of the U.S. The mayor began working for the City of Cotter in 1971 when she was 14, as a youth worker in a summer program. After finishing high school, she went back to work for the city as secretary to Mayor Rex Bayless, later transferring to the water department, eventually working her way up to Department Supervisor where she served for 13 years. Mayor Hammack transitioned to elected office, winning the race for City Recorder. In 2010 she was elected Mayor, and was re-elected in 2014.

Mayor Hammack is retiring on December 31st of this year after 30 years of service to the city of Cotter. As Mayor, she has raised and invested over a million dollars for projects and equipment to the city for the fire, police, street, parks, and water departments.

Mayor Hammack is a true public servant. Cotter is better off today with her hard work and achievements as city employee and as Mayor. I appreciate all the hard work Mayor Hammack has done, and I hope Congress will join me in wishing her a wonderful and enjoyable retirement.