Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, the three bills made in order by today's rules are overfunded to the expense of our Nation's military. They strip longstanding bipartisan provisions and include far left, radical poison pills, they will not be taken up by the Senate, and they will not become law.

Given the looming September 30 deadline to fund the government, I would just hope that my colleagues, my liberal colleagues across the aisle, would work with Republicans to craft a bipartisan appropriation measure that can make it to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life of Tim P. Kegel who passed away on May 22, 2021, at the age of 63.

Tim became a licensed funeral director in 1990, working with his predecessor for 10 years before taking over the business. He established Kegel Funeral Home Inc. in 1999 and ran it for over 20 years, helping the Finleyville community and the surrounding region bury loved ones with dignity. He will always be remembered for the kindness he showed grieving families throughout the burial process.

Tim was a lifelong member of the Finleyville Volunteer Fire Department. During his 45 years with them, he served as president and fire chief. Tim could often be found behind the wheel of his pride and joy, the department's vintage fire engine. He was instrumental in sourcing this engine and brought it to Finleyville in 2000.

His work as a public servant did not stop there. Tim served as deputy coroner in Washington County, which required him to be on call 365 days a year. Oftentimes he would have to respond to disturbing scenes in the dead of night or fight through inclement weather. Despite missing holidays and losing out on weekends, Tim continued in this position for nearly 30 years.

Within his community, he held the position of president for the Finleyville Borough Council. Tim served as treasurer for both the Sons of American Legion Post 613 and the Finleyville Cemetery Company. He was a devoted member of the First Presbyterian Church of Finleyville. Tim's neighbors will always remember his incredible warmth and impassioned storytelling.

Madam Speaker, Tim P. Kegel led a life of service lo his community. From his 45-year career as a volunteer firefighter to his incredibly important work identifying and burying the deceased, his dedication to his neighbors was clear. I have no doubt Tim's legacy will live on in Finleyville and across southwestern Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, I rise to celebrate the life of Rev. Dr. Roger Raymond Fischer, who passed away on July 1, 2021.

A native of Washington, Pennsylvania, Rev. Fischer graduated from Washington High School in 1959. He attended Washington and Jefferson College in 1963, graduating with a Bachelor of Arts in Mathematics and Physics. Later in life, he earned an honorary Doctor of Divinity from his alma mater.

At the age of 25, Rev. Fischer was elected to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives for the 47th District, serving ten consecutive terms from 1966 to 1988. He was one of the youngest members elected in the history of the General Assembly, and served as Chairman of the House Education Committee and on the State Board of Education. After his retirement, Rev. Fischer became President of the Association of Retired Pennsylvania House of Representatives and Senate Members, sharing his wisdom with current legislators for nine terms. A dedicated citizen, he voted in every primary and general election from 1962 until the time of his death, which earned him a place in the Pennsylvania Voter Hall of Fame.

After serving honorably as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force, Rev. Fischer was still determined to contribute to our Nation's defense. He accepted a commission as a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserve, while continuing to work tirelessly for his community in the legislature. Rev. Fischer also gave back to his fellow veterans through his work with American Legion Post 175.

Following his time as a legislator, Rev. Fischer felt a call from God to pursue ministry, earning a master's degree with honors from the Lutheran Seminary at Gettysburg in 1991. In 1998, he was granted a Doctor of Ministry Degree from the Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. Rev. Fischer was ordained on January 13th, 1990, at First Lutheran Church, Washington, and went on to serve several churches in southwestern Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The last congregations he served were Calvary Lutheran in Scenery Hill, Buena Vista Presbyterian, and Hyland Brotheran.

Throughout his life, Rev. Fischer was dedicated to fitness and endurance. He finished the Ironman Triathlon not once, but twice. Rev. Fischer ran multiple marathons across the U.S. and, at the age of 74, added the Disney World Marathon to his list. He elected to bike across America and hiked the entire 2,174.1-mile Appalachian Trail. Well- traveled after discovering the passion with his wife of 48 years, Kitty, Rev. Fischer could proudly say he visited every continent except Antarctica.

Madam Speaker, Rev. Dr. Roger Raymond Fischer led an incredibly accomplished life, one marked by dedication to God, community, and country. I have no doubt his legacy will live on in his community and across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the 100th anniversary of the J. Howard Snyder Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 781 (VFW), which was founded in North Huntingdon, Pennsylvania on June 24, 1921.

Post 781 is named after Corporal J. Howard Snyder, the first American soldier from Irwin, Pennsylvania to die in World War I. Cpl. Snyder passed away on August 13, 1918, three days after his twenty-second birthday and three months before the truce that ended the war. On April 3, 1921, Cpl. Snyder's body came home to Irwin and a burial service was held the next day. The community came together to mourn the death of a young man whose life was taken too soon, with shops along main street closing to observe the procession and burial. With the funeral fresh on their minds, local veterans decided to honor J. Howard Snyder when founding VFW Post 781.

For the last 100 years, Post 781 has been an invaluable resource for generations of veterans, as well as an integral part of the local community. Post 781 brings residents together for fish fries, sponsors the annual Irwin Memorial Day parade, and maintains the gravesites of local veterans. In 2017, members of Post 781 sourced a headstone for a Civil War veteran whose grave had been unmarked for 125 years in Irwin Union Cemetery. Forever devoted to improving the lives of their fellow veterans, Post 781 distributes food to veterans in need and provides an outlet for those processing their service to our country.

Madam Speaker, members of the J. Howard Snyder Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 781 have demonstrated remarkable commitment to those who served and to the local community. As an Iraq War veteran, I'm honored to recognize the 100th birthday of an organization that does so much for my fellow veterans. I have no doubt that Post 781 will remain an integral part or their community in their next 100 years.

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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of four pieces of legislation: H.R. 2662, the inspector general reform bill; H.R. 3005, which requires the removal of certain Capitol statues; H.R. 3684, the Democrats' surface transportation reauthorization bill; and then H. Res. 503 which establishes a select committee to investigate January 6.

The first bill, H.R. 2662, reforms appointment requirements, authorities, and oversight of Federal inspectors general.

Republicans agree that reforms are necessary. We agree it is necessary to ensure that IGs have the tools they need to conduct robust investigation and oversight. In fact, there are several provisions in this bill that we introduced with Republicans as coleads.

But unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, rather than working toward a bipartisan solution, the majority once again chooses a partisan approach and rejected good-faith efforts from Republicans to craft a proposal that both sides agreed on. The bill before us today includes problematic language limiting a President's authority to remove an IG even when that IG has committed dereliction of duty of an important act.

Further, H.R. 2662 requires the President to name the first assistant as acting IG without any exceptions, even when that assistant may be implicated in the very same misconduct that led to the removal of the previous IG.

Lastly, the bill grants the authority to issue subpoenas for former Federal officials without providing the necessary protections to prevent abuses of this authority.

Mr. Speaker, without these problematic provisions, the IG reform bill could come to the floor with broad, bipartisan support. It is just an absolute shame though, I must say, it is not surprising that my colleagues across the aisle once again threw away an opportunity for bipartisanship simply to score cheap political points with their radical liberal base.

In keeping with that theme, the rule makes in order H.R. 3684, the Democrats' retread of last year's Green New Deal. Only this time it is now disguised as infrastructure. Instead of working with Republicans to provide desperately needed infrastructure investment, House Democrats doubled down on the same mandates, the same restrictive policies, and the same social justice warrior priorities that failed to go anywhere last year.

This partisan package spends nearly $548 billion on progressive priorities and programs while actually restricting new road and bridge construction. That is right. It actually restricts new construction of roads and bridges. When we talk about the money, like I said, it is about $550 billion. That is an 11 percent funding increase over last year's bill and a whopping 79 percent increase over the bipartisan FAST Act, the last surface transportation reauthorization bill that was passed by this Chamber.

Alarmingly, but not surprisingly, this bill is not paid for. So then where does the money come from? Well, the answer is simple, deficit spending. Deficit spending which further fuels inflation and increases the cost of things like gas and food that all American families need. Simply put, every American will pay more for everything to meet the demands of the Democrat's far-left radical base.

You would hope that with a price tag like this, with an impact on American families like this, that the bill would actually provide for massive investment to fix our Nation's crumbling roads and bridges. But you would be wrong. H.R. 3684, puts climate and the Green New Deal above real infrastructure needs. In fact, up to $1 out of every $2 spent in this bill is tied up in Green New Deal mandates. This bill puts up roadblocks for transportation and also puts up roadblocks for transporting clean-burning, affordable LNG--obviously, liquefied natural gas--which is another blow to blue-collar workers already devastated by Joe Biden's war on American energy and his war on blue- collar workers.

In focusing on this radical far-left priority, the majority has failed to include the regulatory reforms necessary to address money- wasting permitting delays that currently plague critical infrastructure projects. Think about it. Right now, it takes 6 years on average just to break ground on major public projects; 6 years. An average of 20 to 30 percent of infrastructure project costs are lost to red tape. These costs are real money. This means that about $164 billion in this bill would actually just be wasted on red tape and project delays.

But that is not even the most egregious example of wasteful spending in this legislation. This bill lifts a bipartisan ban and allows the Federal Transit Administration to spend money on art. That is right. According to liberals across the aisle, art is now infrastructure. America's taxpayer dollars are

hard at work in--clearly, newspeak liberal, or really newspeak on display--calling art infrastructure.

Finally, the bill favors big urban areas to the detriment of smaller rural communities like the ones I represent in southwestern Pennsylvania. H.R. 3684 prioritizes funding for urban transportation modes like transit and rail over roads and bridges that everyday Americans use. In fact, more money is given to electric vehicle charging stations than to the entire Rebuild Rural grant program.

I would also be remiss if I failed to point out that those very same electric vehicles cannot be built without critical minerals from China. China is, of course, the world's number one polluter. So where are the climate priorities? Where are the environmental priorities that my colleagues on the liberal side of the aisle claim they care about?

At the end of the day, the Democrats are prioritizing their fantasy of the Green New Deal over traditional concepts of actual infrastructure. My colleagues across the aisle, the Liberal Party, have chosen to bow down to the woke mob that they are terrified of. They have chosen to prioritize woke liberal yuppies over rural America and blue-collar workers that actually work for a living.

Mr. Speaker, for this reason, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues across the aisle of some important facts.

For one, you can't make solar panels without mining, because you have to mine critical minerals. You also can't make windmills without steel, and you can't make steel without mining coal. So that is just something to keep in mind.

Mr. Speaker, last month, CBP encountered more than 180,000 illegal immigrants at our southern border. That is a new 21-year high. Think about it. Last month, in 1 month, almost 200,000 illegal immigrants were at our southern border.

Many of these illegal immigrants are traveling from and through high- risk South and Central American countries where COVID-19 infection rates are skyrocketing. South America, in particular, has become a major COVID-19 hot spot with death rates eight times above the global average.

And yet, the Biden administration is considering ending Title 42, the public health authority that allows Customs and Border Patrol to quickly turn back migrants due to the dangers posed by highly contagious diseases. CBP heavily relies on Title 42 authority to expel adults and family units that illegally cross the border. In May of 2021, CBP expelled more than 100,000 individuals under Title 42.

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the draconian shutdown measures from far-left Governors, including Pennsylvania's Tom Wolf, many States are still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic. Ending Title 42 puts that fragile recovery at risk, especially at a time when powerful variants continue to pop up across the globe.

That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider my good friend's, Congresswoman Yvette Herrell, PAUSE Act. The PAUSE Act would provide for stringent enforcement of Title 42, and would prohibit HHS and DHS from weakening Title 42's implementation.

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

Mr. Speaker, here to explain the amendment is the bill's author, my good friend, Congresswoman Herrell. I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Yes, I do.

Mr. Speaker, just another fact of life now. We cannot make an electronic vehicle without critical minerals. Unfortunately, due to the red tape that is put upon the mining industry by liberals across the aisle, we are now dependent on China for roughly 80 percent of our critical minerals. Simply put, we now cannot make an electric car without China.

Here to talk about another predicament that liberals across the aisle put us in is my good friend from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, once again, this Chamber is considering legislation that could easily have passed with bipartisan support. If Democrats would stop appeasing their radical, progressive base and they would stop worrying about what whiny, spoiled millennials are saying on Twitter, if they decided they would finally try to approach their work here in some kind of bipartisan manner, then we could work for real solutions for real Americans that would help the country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of S. 475, a bipartisan bill establishing a national holiday on June 19, known as Juneteenth National Independence Day. The June 19th date marks the date that Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, and announced the end of slavery and the Civil War.

I am honored to stand here with my colleague from Pennsylvania as the Battle of Gettysburg, of course, took place in Pennsylvania, involving the largest number of Civil War casualties, and marked the turning point of the war.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Keystone State played a crucial part in the Civil War. My State provided over 350,000 soldiers and sailors, more than any other Northern State except New York. Pennsylvania also served as a vital resource for military equipment and food for the Union Army. As I already mentioned, the Commonwealth was the site of the world's largest battle, that of Gettysburg.

So, it probably comes as no surprise that Pennsylvania already recognizes Juneteenth. In fact, since 1980, 47 States, including, as I said, my home State of Pennsylvania, as well as the District of Columbia, have issued legislation recognizing Juneteenth as a holiday or as a day of observance.

Designating June 19 as a national holiday would increase awareness and education on Juneteenth; it would celebrate Black history and culture; and it would recognize the Americans who fought and died to end slavery.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I would like to thank my good friend and colleague from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) for the kind words for my home State of Pennsylvania, and for recognizing the descendants of those who fought to end slavery, especially those in Pennsylvania.

Additionally, I would like to commend her on working on the House companion for, from what I am understanding, years and years. So this certainly says volumes about the work she put into the bill, and I would just like to thank her.

Mr. Speaker, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, but it took 2\1/2\ years for slaves in Texas to learn of their freedom. S. 475 will finally designate June 19 as a national holiday and highlight the important history and contribution of Black Americans and those who fought and died to end slavery.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of two pieces of legislation. The first is H.R. 256, which would repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or the AUMF. This AUMF authorizes the President to defend the Nation against threats posed by and in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, as an Iraq war veteran, I sat literally face-to-face with bombmakers, murderers, and other terrorists who were willing to give up their lives in their quest to destroy America. The 2002 AUMF is the only current legal framework for fighting Iranian-backed militia operating in Iraq.

I agree that there are important conversations to be had about the War Powers Resolution and the future of the 2002 AUMF. However, Congress should undertake a collaborative process and work with stakeholders, like the Department of Defense and the intelligence community, and we should work with them to draft a replacement for the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs before we repeal important authorities for confronting and eliminating terrorists.

If we don't do this, we leave our Nation open to threats from Iran, which is already emboldened by President Biden's kowtowing and his capitulations, so we would be more vulnerable to Iran.

We also leave ourselves vulnerable to other terrorist organizations that are intent on destroying and taking American lives both at home and abroad.

This rule also makes in order H.R. 1187, the so-called Corporate Governance Improvement and Investor Protection Act. In reality, this measure is nothing more than House Democrats' latest attempt to force their radical, far-left agenda on the American people.

Republicans support securities regulation and disclosure regimes that are actually helpful to American investors and entrepreneurs. The bill before us today is meant to appeal to social activists and woke corporations rather than Main Street investors looking to save money for retirement, pay for their kids' college education, or simply build a better life.

H.R. 1187 will push the SEC to focus on social activism rather than investor interests and use our securities laws to push a partisan progressive agenda.

If you don't believe me, just don't take my word for it. Look at the words of Senator Elizabeth Warren. She put out a press release about provisions in this bill, which she claimed will ``accelerate the market transition from fossil fuels to cleaner and more sustainable energy sources that mitigate climate change.''

Those are her words. The activism is right there. It is written into this bill.

Clearly, H.R. 1187 is about the social justice Democrats' war on American coal, oil, and gas producers and the people who actually work in those industries. It is more about that than enhancing shareholder value.

I would just like to remind my colleagues that under the law, public companies are already required to publicly disclose any material information that investors would find important to making investment decisions. If the mandatory disclosures in H.R. 1187 were actually material, public companies would already be required to disclose them.

Rather, each of these disclosures, but particularly the climate and socially related disclosures, are intended to what I would call name and shame public companies and bully them into compliance with the House Democrats' radical, far-left progressive agenda.

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, H.R. 1187 discourages private companies from going public; it encourages public companies to then go private; and it limits investment opportunities for hardworking Americans.

While my colleagues across the aisle continue to bow before the woke mob and continue to appease woke yuppies, House Republicans will stand and fight for everyday Americans trying to save their hard-earned money and work toward a better life for themselves and their families.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in addition to making H.R. 256 and H.R. 1187 in order, the rule before us today includes a budget-deeming resolution that puts the House on track for a $1.5 trillion spending spree.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my good friend and ranking member of the Budget Committee, to discuss this reckless spending spree.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman such time as he may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, last month there were over 180,000 encounters at the southern border, almost 200,000 encounters at the southern border. That is a new 20-year record for illegal border crossings, 20-year record.

Alarmingly, CBP has seized more deadly fentanyl so far in 2021 than in all of 2020. Based on our current trends, we can expect overdose deaths in 2021 to meet, if not exceed, the 90,000 Americans who lost their lives between September 2019 and September 2020, 90,000 American deaths.

Yet Vice President Harris, who President Biden put in charge of stemming migration at our southern border, refuses to go firsthand to see the crisis in person. In Vice President Harris' own words, ``If you want to fix a problem, you have to go where the problem exists.'' That is what the Vice President said.

Alarmingly, she hasn't gone to the southern border at all.

It would be laughable if this wasn't a humanitarian crisis. It would be laughable if Americans weren't going to die of overdoses because of fentanyl crossing our southern border.

That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider Congresswoman Ashley Hinson's See the Crisis Act. This legislation would restrict Vice President Harris from using taxpayer dollars to travel internationally until she actually visits our southern border.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson) to explain the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my very good friend.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1187 is House Democrats' latest attempt to force a radical progressive agenda on the American people by turning the SEC into the social policy police.

While my colleagues across the aisle continue to capitulate to the woke yuppies, continue to bow down in fear to the woke mob, House Republicans will fight for policies that help everyday Americans build better lives for themselves.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the underlying measure.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from Colorado, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

The rule before us today provides for consideration of two pieces of legislation. The first bill, H.R. 1065, would create a stand-alone law requiring employers to provide accommodations to known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

Republicans have long supported antidiscrimination legislation, including protections for pregnant workers. We agree pregnant workers should be protected and accommodated in the workplace. However, it is disappointing that the Education and Labor Democrats absolutely refuse to work with committee Republicans to include a longstanding provision protecting religious organizations from being forced to make employment decisions that conflict with their faith. I really hope that moving forward, my colleagues across the aisle will actually work with Republicans and help protect religious liberty.

The rule also makes in order H.R. 2547, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, a collection of eight Financial Services bills that claim to address the debt collection practices and the problems thereof in the U.S. economy. But in reality, this measure is just the latest step in House Democrats' socialist takeover of our country's financial system.

Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, consumers are already protected from harmful debt collection practices. While Democrats claim H.R. 2547 is necessary due to the economic effects of COVID-19, several of these partisan bills were introduced last Congress prior to the pandemic.

It is absolutely clear that my colleagues across the aisle are using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to dismantle our free market system and force their radical, progressive agenda on the American people.

Instead of actually helping consumers, H.R. 2547 will increase healthcare costs and make credit more expensive for borrowers. In fact, under this legislation, the lowest income borrowers may be pushed out of the system entirely.

Further, H.R. 2547 will make it harder for small businesses, many of which have been devastated by this pandemic. It will make it harder for those small businesses to receive payments for services rendered.

Finally, H.R. 2547 undermines the CFPB's October 2020 final rule, intended to modernize debt collection practices. This rule was the result of more than 7 years of research and set forth guidelines for both consumers and debt collectors on acceptable communications.

During committee consideration of this bill, Ranking Member McHenry offered a substitute amendment to address bipartisan concerns with the current financial framework. This commonsense proposal included provisions to prevent debt collection harassment of servicemembers, provide protection for cosigners in cases of death or permanent disability, and prohibited the use of Social Security numbers by consumer reporting agencies.

The majority, however, refused to work with Republicans. This refusal is just the latest in the Democrats' disturbing ``my way or the highway'' approach on issues where there is actually room for bipartisan solutions.

House Republicans will continue to support policies that provide Americans with access to affordable credit, while ensuring that our financial system remains safe and sound.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, you wouldn't know it from the Democrats' floor schedule, but Sunday marked the beginning of National Police Week.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation designating May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day, and the week in which that date falls as Police Week.

Throughout this week, our Nation honors and pays tribute to law enforcement officers who made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country and our communities safe.

When Republicans controlled the House, we marked this week by moving legislation to support our police officers and help them keep our communities safe. In stark contrast, this liberal, progressive majority is not moving a single bill to support law enforcement during this year's Police Week.

Instead, Democrats are choosing to ignore Police Week, even though 2020 was the deadliest year on record for police officers in 50 years; even though, barely 1 month ago, Capitol Police Officer Billy Evans, a father of two, was killed defending this very building in which we stand; and even though more police officers have been shot and killed in the first 4\1/2\ months of 2021 than in all of 2020 and 2019.

I guess that is not surprising coming from the party that has openly attacked our law enforcement officers and called for defunding, dismantling, and abolishing the police.

Don't believe me? Just take their word for it.

Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib tweeted: ``Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist.'' The Congresswoman then went on and said: ``No more policing, incarceration, and militarization.''

Congresswoman Cori Bush called St. Louis' decision to eliminate $4 million from the city's police budget a ``historic'' move that ``marks a new future for our city.''

Then there is Chairwoman Maxine Waters, chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, who tweeted, and I read the tweet verbatim: ``Police reform is not enough. Getting rid of serial, racist, ignorant, and stupid cops must be a top priority. Let's call them out.''

Not only is this disrespectful to the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities, but it is actually dangerous. The stats speak for themselves. In Democrat-run cities that defunded the police, they have seen increases in crime. Let's look at some of the numbers.

Austin, Texas: They cut funding for police by $150 million. In return, they saw a 50 percent spike in homicides.

Los Angeles: L.A. defunded the police by $175 million. They, too, experienced an increase in crime, an 11.6 percent rise in homicides.

Then, there is New York City. New York City cut police funding by $1 billion, that is billion with a B. In return, New York City saw a 97 percent rise in shootings and a 45 percent increase in homicides. Let me repeat that for you because the stats are so alarming: a 97 percent increase in shootings and a 45 percent increase in homicides.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans support law enforcement officers and want to help them do their jobs safely, effectively, and professionally. That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to consider Congressman Don Bacon's Back the Blue Act, Congressman John Rutherford's Protect and Serve Act, and Congressmen McCaul, Cuellar, and Chabot's Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Law Enforcement Protection Act. Let's talk about each one of those bills.

The Back the Blue Act would protect our police officers by making it a Federal crime to kill or assault a Federal law enforcement officer.

The Protect and Serve Act would create enhanced penalties for anyone who targets law enforcement officers and purposefully harms them.

The Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Law Enforcement Protection Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation, would ensure individuals who harm or attempt to harm U.S. Federal officers or employees serving abroad can be brought to justice and prosecuted here in the United States.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Colorado was talking about money in the American Rescue Plan and money going to States and how that is being used. Let's be clear about something.

California was actually running a surplus in their budget, yet that didn't stop them from taking the money from the American Rescue Plan and giving that not to the police, but to illegal immigrants.

And there is this myth out there that Democrats really don't want to defund the police. I would say that it is not a myth. They actually do want to defund and dismantle the police. But don't take my words for it. We can take the words of my liberal colleagues, the Democrats.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, when reacting to Mayor Bill de Blasio's plan to cut one-sixth of New York City's Police Department budget, she actually deemed that as insufficient. And I will quote my colleague: ``Defunding the police means defunding police. It doesn't mean budget tricks or funny math.''

Again, that was my colleague from New York, a Democrat. Her words, not mine.

Representative Cori Bush, when celebrating St. Louis defunding their police force, despite consistently ranking as one of the most dangerous cities in the United States, to that my colleague said: ``Today's decision to defund the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department is historic. It marks a new future for our city.''

Well, my colleague might be half correct because it was historic. It did usher in a new future for that city, and that is the fact that you have crime rates rising to historic levels.

My colleague from Missouri continued and she also said: ``If we remove that''--meaning the funding from the police, if we cut police funding--``and take that money and put it into our education system, put it into making sure our unhoused community members are sheltered, putting it into mental health resources, that is what we are saying because that is what is going to make our communities safer.''

So please stop the myth that Democrats actually don't want to defund the police. They absolutely do. They have said it over and over again, and their policies have proven it in many cities.

And what do the American people get?

Increased crime rates.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), my good friend and a former sheriff.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Colorado is asking why we are talking about the police. Well, the Democrats have been doing a lot of talking about police themselves--lots of talking about police.

Representative Ilhan Omar, in talking about the Minneapolis Police Department following the death of George Floyd, said: ``You can't really reform a department that is rotten to the root.''

So, again, we are talking about police because police are heroes. We have always stood with the police, as Republicans. I wish my Democrat colleagues could say the same. But they have said repeatedly throughout the summer, in the past, atrocious things about the police.

Chairwoman Maxine Waters, in response to the death of Rayshard Brooks, who tried to shoot officers with their own tasers during an attempted DUI arrest, said: ``Police reform is not enough. Getting rid of serial racist, ignorant, and stupid cops must be a top priority. Let's call them out. Police protective unions, you have got to go, too.''

The attacks go on and on, on our law enforcement. After the death of Daunte Wright, following a physical struggle where an officer fired their service weapon instead of the intended taser, Representative Rashida Tlaib said: ``Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist.''

Representative Tlaib has also said: ``No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can't be reformed.''

Again, this is what Democrats say about police.

And I know my colleague from Colorado said he supports police, but in response to riots across the country surrounding the death of George Floyd, my good friend from Colorado said: ``Supporting Representative Pressley's resolution to condemn all acts of police brutality, racial profiling, and excessive use of force is the first step, but an important step, in affecting change and working to end these injustices.''

That sounds very benign, and understandably so. But if you look at the support for what the resolution actually said, let's read what the resolution said.

``The system of policing in America and its systemic targeting of and use of deadly and brutal force against people of color, particularly Black people, stems from the long legacy of slavery, lynching, Jim Crow laws, and the war on drugs in the United States.''

So, in essence, supporting that resolution is really linking modern police to the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow. It is absolutely unacceptable.

Again, it was a Democrat, it was JFK in 1962, who declared this week Police Week. I just wish the current Democratic Party could stand with the Republicans and honor police, especially memorialize police who have died defending our communities and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon), my good friend the former general.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is relevant, these three police bills, because, as I said

when I opened, if we defeat this previous question, I will bring forth the amendment personally to bring up these three bills that actually honor our police officers.

Again, it is a historical norm in this body, in this Chamber, that during Police Week we focus on bills to help police officers. That is why this is relevant today. And the fact that my Democrat colleagues refuse to talk about the police raises a lot of questions. We need to help the police.

Let me just give you one example of the heroic acts of the police. After a suicidal man drove off a bridge into an ocean, San Diego Police Department K-9 officer, Jonathan Wiese, sprung into action, scaling down the side of a cliff to rescue twin 2-year-old sisters who were caught inside the vehicle.

When asked about this decision to throw himself over a cliff, Officer Wiese explained: ``I didn't do this job to be liked every day. I didn't do it to become rich. I did it because I wanted to be out there making a difference and helping people.''

That is the mentality of the men and women who are in our law enforcement. That is why this week they deserve our attention, and that is why my colleagues should be afforded the right to bring up their three bills through an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, while the rest of the Nation recognizes National Police Week and shows gratitude for the men and women keeping our communities safe, House Democrats are prioritizing two pieces of legislation that do absolutely nothing, nothing to help law enforcement officers.

Instead, they are jamming through a socialist takeover of our country's financial system that will actually hurt consumers and our Nation's small businesses. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I urge ``no'' on the underlying measure.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of three pieces of legislation.

The first bill, H.R. 1333, limits the President's existing authority to restrict entry of foreigners into the United States.

Border Patrol is encountering more than 5,500 individuals per day at our southern border. Let me say that again. They are encountering 5,500 individuals per day at the southern border.

Over the weekend, President Biden finally acknowledged the situation for what it is--not a challenge but a crisis. Yet, House Democrats are moving forward with a bill that does nothing to stop the surge of migrants at the southern border and, instead, actually weakens our national security.

Along the same lines, House Resolution 330 provides for consideration of H.R. 1573, which requires access to counsel for all travelers referred to a secondary inspection at airports and other ports of entry.

Again, this bill does nothing to address the Biden border crisis. It would

actually complicate the job of Border Patrol agents while costing taxpayers $825 million over the next 5 years.

With a 233 percent increase in fentanyl seizures at our southern border, it is a shame that my liberal colleagues across the aisle are actually creating more work for Border Patrol. Instead, we should provide these brave men and women with much-needed resources to address the national security and public health consequences of the Biden border crisis.

Lastly, this resolution makes in order H.R. 51, legislation admitting the present District of Columbia as the 51st State and authorizing special elections for two Senators and one Representative.

This is nothing more than an unconstitutional power grab by Democrats to gain two ultraprogressive D.C. Senate seats and force radical, far- left policies on the American people.

Our Founding Fathers never intended for D.C. to become a State. In Federalist No. 43, James Madison argued that if the Capital City were situated within a State, the Federal Government would be subject to undue influence by the host State. As such, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution establishes a neutral district for our Nation's representatives to meet and vote on equal ground.

Further, the 23rd Amendment grants three Presidential electors specifically for the District. The original meaning of the ``district'' in the Constitution, and the necessary repeal of the 23rd Amendment, requires an amendment to the Constitution in order for D.C. to even become a State.

Just don't take my word for it, though. Since 1963, every Justice Department, Republican and Democrat, that has addressed the issue of D.C. statehood has concluded that Congress does not have the authority to alter the status of the city legislatively.

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy thought it was inconceivable that D.C. would be granted statehood without repealing the 23rd Amendment and that the result would ``produce an absurdity.'' Again, those are the words of RFK.

Finally, the legislation before us today does nothing to address the financial implications of D.C. statehood. According to a 2020 study, D.C. ranked 150th out of 150 of the largest cities for its lack of operating efficiency--150 out of 150.

The Federal Government provides billions of dollars to D.C. each year for everything from the judicial system to the pension system. Yet, House Democrats are so desperate to jam this measure through that, under H.R. 51, the Federal Government will remain responsible for funding many of the new State's functions.

There is absolutely no incentive for the new State to work toward financial self-sufficiency, meaning Americans in other States would be forced to fund D.C. Democrats' priorities.

Again, House Democrats are pushing ahead to admit a new State to the Union purely for partisan gain while ignoring the constitutional, practical, and legal challenges in doing so. That is why I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague may have said that these are merely my assertions. They are certainly my arguments, but they are also supported by others, particularly well-known members of the liberal party.

The former Mayor of D.C. himself, Mayor Walter Washington, said: ``I would have problems with statehood in terms of exacting from it some enclaves, or little enclaves all around the city. Ultimately, it seems to me that would erode the very fabric of the city itself and the viability of the city.''

Again, that was the former Mayor of Washington, D.C., who was talking about the enclaves that are being called for in this bill.

Additionally, the former D.C. Delegate Walter Fauntroy himself said that a bill like this would be in direct defiance of the prescription of the Founding Fathers.

As far as the constitutional argument, it is not just me making the assertion that this would be unconstitutional because there is an issue, and that is the 23rd Amendment. Don't take it from me. Look at the Carter administration DOJ. They said that to provide statehood for the District would have to be by constitutional amendment. Otherwise, it would ignore the Framer's intent.

John Harmon, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel during the Carter administration, said that this would have to be accomplished through constitutional amendment.

Further, RFK, Robert Kennedy, said that Congress likely did not have the authority under Article I, Section 8, clause 17 to shrink the Federal district to essentially the same size that is being discussed.

The argument that the Federal district constituting the seat of government is a permanent part of our constitutional system is substantially strengthened by the adoption of the 23rd Amendment. Thinking that we can merely repeal an amendment through legislative action, that is not how the Constitution works; otherwise, you wouldn't have had the 21st Amendment, which was needed to repeal the 18th Amendment. We could have just merely repealed it.

Additionally, there are talks about this not being a political exercise. My colleague has been quoted, actually, in The Washington Post saying that ``there is a national political logic for it''--``it'' being D.C. statehood. Because the Senate has become the principal obstacle to social progress on a whole range of issues--not my words; my colleague's words--this issue is all about a power grab.

We are talking about another issue that is on this rule, immigration.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 2321, the Border Surge Response and Resilience Act. For far too long, Democrats denied the crisis caused by Biden's open-border rhetoric. This bipartisan bill will ensure that DHS develops a plan and has the resources it needs to address migrant surges and secure our border. Something is clearly missing from the current administration.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, we hear a lot about no taxation without representation. But there is representation. We forget that D.C. has three electoral votes. That is the 23rd Amendment. They have a Delegate in Congress. They also have local government and a mayor. They have the Home Rule Act.

But taxation does bring up a serious issue because D.C. would need to raise taxes if it were to become a State. It simply is not self- sufficient economically. In fact, D.C. takes more from the Federal Government than any other area in the United States; $73,000 per capita, to be exact. That is astronomical when you think about it. The second highest State is Virginia at $16,000 per capita, followed by Maryland at $15,000 per capita. Again, D.C. takes $73,000 per capita.

If this were to go through, D.C. would need to raise revenue. Because of the massive amount of Federal land in the District, you would then have to have more taxation, presumably through two ways: One, a commuter tax, taxing people that come into the District from other areas; or, two, you would have to have tolling of roads leading into the District. Both of these are incredibly problematic.

The first one, a commuter tax, would actually create the problem my liberal colleagues are saying exists in the first place, no taxation without representation, because you would have the District of Columbia taxing people from, presumably, Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, where have you, for commuting into the District. They wouldn't have representation here. That is actually taxation without representation.

Further, if you were to toll roads leading into the District, you would infringe upon people's constitutional rights to petition the government. Imagine how much a tour bus would have to pay if they wanted to come here in the District.

But I was talking about the Home Rule Act and I was talking about the 23rd Amendment, and it reminded me that there was an allegation that Republicans somehow don't care about this issue. It is actually the opposite. Republicans are the ones who have advanced more rights for the District of Columbia. Think about it.

It was actually the Kennedy and the Carter administrations, both their Departments of Justice concluded that, for D.C. to be a State, it would require a constitutional amendment. They were on our side of this argument. Historically, it was President Eisenhower who pushed through the 23rd Amendment to get D.C. three electoral votes. And just a side note, it was Republican, Prescott Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush, who was instrumental in passing the 23rd Amendment. They were both Republicans. And it was President Nixon who signed the Home Rule Act into law. This has been Republican-led since the very beginning.

There was also an argument about D.C. residents, that this is somehow a civil rights issue. Civil rights, that is an actual term of art. Civil rights is a violation when the rights are denied because a person is who the person is. D.C. residents don't have a lack of representation in Congress because of who they are, but, instead, of where they choose to live.

And this isn't just me making this argument. The late Democrat, Representative John Dingell, made a similar argument, and I will quote the late Representative Dingell: ``I have supported every single civil rights measure that has passed this Congress since 1955, but we have to look at the facts before us. No citizen in Washington, D.C., is chained to the pillars of the U.S. Capitol. They can leave any time they want. To say this is somehow a civil rights violation is insulting to actual civil rights violations.''

Then let's go back to the three electoral votes issue. If we do follow this course of action and not repeal the 23rd Amendment before enacting D.C. statehood, you are going to have, as my colleague from Maryland just admitted, a sloppy and messy situation where the new State gets three electoral votes, and then the Federal enclave gets three electoral votes.

Well, who lives in the Federal enclave?

It would be the First Family.

So you would, presumably, give the incumbent three electoral votes in the election, and then D.C. itself three electoral votes.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).

Madam Speaker, there was talk about retrocession. There can be arguments that the former retrocession was actually unconstitutional. In fact, the House of Representatives tried to pass a bill to say just that. It passed, and it, unfortunately, sat in the Senate Judiciary Committee without passing and challenges to the Supreme Court were dismissed on procedural grounds.

Additionally, we have to remember the many reasons why the District is just that, a district. It is because the Founding Fathers did not want to create an imperial State that would have too much influence and control over the Capitol.

My colleague from Maryland actually wrote about this in 1990 in a law review article published in the Catholic University Law Review. ``The Representatives from the new State, likely living minutes from their offices, will theoretically devote more time to institutional and committee politics and less to constant travel back and forth across the country, increasing their importance and influence on Capitol Hill.''

That was my colleague from Maryland. That is not my assertion.

If D.C. does become a State, Madam Speaker, you will create almost by definition a super Congressman in this body and two super Senators that yield much more influence than others who have to travel back and forth to their district.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

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

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear my colleague from Maryland's newfound positions because, in the 1990s, I believe the majority leader actually had the opposite viewpoint and took the opposite vote. But then again, things can change, and so can opinions.

It is also interesting to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle use D.C.'s population as some justification for D.C. statehood. We know that the Founding Fathers knew that D.C. would grow into a large metropolis.

George Washington, when he was laying out the land use of the city, he actually used Paris as the example for the city, which was at the time 800,000 residents. They used one of the biggest cities in Europe as an example of the city because they knew the District of Columbia would grow into a thriving metropolis. Yet, they still wanted to carve out D.C. as an independent district, not as a State. The argument that there are now some 700,000 residents of D.C. is a nonstarter if you are going back to the historical intent of the Founding Fathers.

But let's talk about the border crisis. There has been a 400 percent increase in illegal border crossings compared to March 2020. Yet, today, we are considering a rule bringing up two immigration bills that do absolutely nothing to address this crisis.

Again, we are calling up a rule on H.R. 51 that is the Democrat's unconstitutional attempt to ram through D.C. statehood for their own political gain. What is that gain? It is very simple. It is bringing in two ultraliberal Senators. D.C. is the most liberal city, second only to San Francisco, and this bill bringing two ultraliberal Senators into the Senate with the idea of abolishing the filibuster is to what end? To pack the Supreme Court to ram through a far-left, radical agenda.

For those reasons, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the underlying measure. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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