Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the distinguished career of Laura Hill, the current Mayor of Southlake, Texas. A true model of civic leadership, Mayor Hill has endeavored to serve her community to her fullest capacity for almost two decades. As her second mayoral term comes to a close, it is my privilege to recognize her estimable accomplishments.

Mayor Hill's public service began with her election to the Southlake City Council in 2004. During her tenure on the Council, Mayor Hill worked to improve the quality of life for the citizens, especially the children, of her community. She founded the Students and Parents Against Risks to our Kids (S.P.A.R.K.) organization. S.P.A.R.K. enabled Mayor Hill and her fellow community activists to promote sound public policies to safeguard the youth of Southlake.

In order to promote the intellectual as well as the physical well- being of the children in her community, Mayor Hill also established S.A.S.O. (Scholars and Athletes Serving Others) and S.K.I.L. (Southlake Kids Interested in Leadership) during her years as a City Councilwoman. With her election as Mayor in 2015, she has continued to promote the interests of the community's youth through school safety initiatives, the ``Mayor for the Day'' program and cooperative working groups with local high school students.

Mayor Hill has championed the city's businesses and citizens with her leadership efforts to enhance the quality of life through sound fiscal management, excellent recreational offerings, public improvements, promotion of unity and cultural diversity, and strengthening communication within her community during the pandemic through outreach programs, virtual town halls, and a cohesive and coordinated approach to reopening municipal government. Her tireless efforts in bolstering the efficiency and efficacy of municipal operations and its workforce have been invaluable to her constituency.

It is with great appreciation for her tremendous contributions of time and effort to Southlake and North Texas that I offer Mayor Hill congratulations on the completion of her second mayoral term. Her selfless devotion towards the good of our community and region is a reflection of her compassionate service ethic. Mayor Laura Hill has been an exemplary model of civic service.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. DeSaulnier from California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I first want to acknowledge, along with Mr. DeSaulnier, the poignant loss that we all feel here in the House with the departure of our friend, Alcee Hastings. He was a fixture in the Rules Committee for all the years I have been on the committee. Certainly, while yesterday we acknowledged that we feel his absence, we also feel his presence. He was truly larger than life on the committee.

Today's rule provides for consideration of two bills that are meant to improve working conditions and compensation. The House actually considered these same bills last Congress. They did not receive consideration in the Senate, and I do not believe any substance has changed in the underlying bills.

The first bill, H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, seeks to prevent wage discrimination on the basis of sex, a fact that is already prohibited under current law. This legislation will help trial lawyers but offers no new protections against pay discrimination.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 prohibits all discrimination in pay based upon sex or any other non-job-performance-related issue. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, and sex. Sex-based wage disparity is in direct violation of not one but two Federal laws.

It is important to acknowledge that bad actors engage in gender pay discrimination. Their actions are illegal,

and they leave employers vulnerable to burdensome lawsuits and heavy fines.

I could not agree more that such discrimination has no place in any business or in society in general. However, those who perpetrate these illegal acts are the exception and not the rule.

Congress must not forget the positive economic trends that this Nation enjoyed before the arrival of the novel coronavirus in the United States. The Trump administration made great strides reining in Federal overreach, which quickly improved opportunities for all Americans. Unemployment was at the lowest level in nearly half a century, and median wages across all demographic groups rose faster than at any other time in American history.

Unfortunately, the majority has crafted legislation that would place greater burdens on employers, reduce the privacy of employees, and increase Federal spending. H.R. 7 does little to protect the wages of American workers who are experiencing gender pay discrimination. In fact, it makes it harder for employers to defend legitimate differentials in pay based on factors other than sex.

Currently, employers may pay differential wages due to factors other than sex, like education, training, or experience. This means that all other things being equal, a woman cannot be paid differently than a man. When an employee brings different qualifications to the job, such as she has an advanced degree or more experience, the factors used to evaluate employee pay are no longer equal. This preserves the flexibility for employers to make the best decision for their businesses, including hiring the most qualified individuals, regardless of sex.

H.R. 7 would now require that non-sex reasons for any wage disparity have a business necessity, a term which is not defined in the bill. Providing a gender-based business necessity that accounts for the entire differential in pay is nearly an impossible standard to defend against.

This change to a bona fide factor defense does not consider the reality of the labor market. Employees are often willing to accept lower pay for greater control over their work location, schedule, and vacation time. Studies have shown that this is particularly true for women.

With the threat of lawsuits hanging over the heads of employers, they are less likely to allow for flexibility in the workplace. Instead of allowing employees to negotiate their own pay and work arrangements, employers will be incentivized to transform jobs that were once negotiable and flexible into jobs that are much more rigid.

H.R. 7 also limits an employer's ability to pay its employees based on performance. If a woman were to earn a performance-based bonus or salary increase that her male coworker did not receive, then that man could file suit against the employer on the basis that the bonus is not a business necessity due to the vagueness in terms in H.R. 7. With this threat in mind, employers are much less likely to use performance-based pay and bonuses, despite studies showing that such pay models actually do increase employee productivity.

While legitimate claims do exist, and I hope that all employees who have experienced discrimination do seek legal remedy, the changes in H.R. 7 would significantly increase the size and profitability of lawsuits, making nonmeritorious claims even more likely for trial lawyers looking for new cash flows. That is the inherent danger.

H.R. 7 also requires employers to provide disaggregated employee information to the Department of Labor without delineating mechanisms to keep that information safe. Have we ever heard that the Federal Government has lost employee data or that the Federal Government may not be the best steward of citizens' private information? Maybe we should limit the data received until those capabilities are, in fact, improved and verified.

The second bill included in this rule, H.R. 1195, requires that the Secretary of Labor issue a rule on workplace violence prevention in the healthcare and social service sectors. Some may be surprised to hear that acts of violence are the third leading cause of fatal occupational injuries. Of these incidents, approximately 8 percent were intentionally caused by another person.

When Americans go to work each day, they do not expect to face violence or other harm. This risk is especially high for healthcare providers and social workers. These caregivers can be subject to patients who may not be in control when under the influence of medication or may have some other mental stress, upset family members, ongoing domestic disputes, and, unfortunately, even gang violence.

The rate of workplace violence resulting in days away from work for healthcare providers is, on average, four times higher than for other professions. In addition, healthcare providers and social workers are less likely to report incidents. This may be partly due to the pledge to do no harm and the inclination to forgive patient-caused injuries as accidental. Regardless of the situation, all workers deserve a safe workplace.

Currently, there is no mandatory standard on workplace violence prevention. However, in 2015, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration published guidelines for preventing workplace violence for healthcare and social service workers and is currently working on a rule for workplace violence prevention.

H.R. 1195 would require the Secretary of Labor to issue a rule on workplace violence prevention based upon OSHA's 2015 guidelines. An interim standard is required within 1 year, and a final rule must be issued within 2 years.

While the goal of this legislation is very important, the timeframe imposed on the Department of Labor and OSHA does exceed the norm. While no one believes that we should continue to delay worker protections, OSHA has already begun the rulemaking process and is gathering stakeholder input.

Perhaps, rather than pass a bill to require the issuance of a rule, we should be considering reforms to the entire OSHA rulemaking process. In other words, let's improve the bureaucracy rather than simply flogging it.

While an OSHA rulemaking would ensure enforcement of workplace violence prevention policies, according to a 2018 American Hospital Association survey, 97 percent of respondents reported they already have a workplace violence prevention policy in place. In 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that additional research was required to identify effective strategies to prevent violence, particularly in healthcare settings.

We can all agree that there is a need for OSHA to do its work to issue a workplace violence prevention regulation to protect healthcare providers and social service workers. I hope we are able to accomplish this goal, but I do worry that we are placing another costly burden on entities through what is supposed to be an expedited process that may require modification in the future to ensure an effective and safe workplace for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule immediately to consider H.R. 2430, the Temporary Reauthorization and Study of the Emergency Scheduling of Fentanyl Analogues Act. This critical bill would extend the Drug Enforcement Administration's authority to temporarily schedule fentanyl analogues for another year.

Unfortunately, President Biden's open border policy is encouraging drug trafficking of substances like fentanyl. So it is imperative that the Drug Enforcement Administration retain this authority to keep those dangerous substances out of our communities.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a critical reauthorization and it is imperative to maintaining our Nation's efforts to address the opiate epidemic.

In February of 2018, the Drug Enforcement Administration used its authority to place nonscheduled fentanyl-like substances temporarily into schedule I for a period of 2 years. It is important that we do not let this authorization lapse, as it listed fentanyl is still an eminent threat to Americans.

The Drug Enforcement Administration testified that the positive impacts since implementing this temporary schedule are significant, stating that prior to this action, the DEA observed a rapid and continuous emergence of a new fentanyl-like substance each time it is scheduled to remove a fentanyl-like substance. In other words, you take one out and one would pop up.

We simply cannot return to that reality because of the deadly nature of this substance.

Just last month, two north Texas teenagers died from counterfeit pills containing fentanyl. Last year, the Dallas DEA found over 16 kilograms of fentanyl targeting the region. It contained over 8 million lethal doses--one for every north Texas resident.

Unfortunately, throughout this pandemic, the opiate crisis has continued, and it has gotten worse. Exacerbating this problem is the ease with which fentanyl is being smuggled across our southern border. The changes in border security enforcement that have occurred have sent a message to the cartels and the drug smugglers that securing our sovereignty is no longer an administration priority. What is worse is that some adults and children are forced to carry these drugs into the United States by smugglers. Sometimes innocent individuals traffic drugs into the United States in their vehicles without even knowing that the cartels have placed it there without their knowledge.

The only way to limit the exploitation of innocent individuals and to protect our American communities is to limit the market for these vile products.

During the past year, this country has suffered over half a million deaths to an unforeseen disease. We should do everything we can to trample the market of a known killer: fentanyl. We must equip our communities to address this issue at its very source.

The temporary emergency rescheduling of fentanyl analogues to schedule I is a necessary tool for the Drug Enforcement Administration to work with other agencies and law enforcement officials to address the threat of illicit fentanyl.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support this bill, and I strongly urge fellow Members to defeat the previous question and support H.R. 2430.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) to speak on the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Meijer) to speak on the amendment.

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

And just to speak a little further on the amendment that has been offered if the previous question is defeated, H.R. 2430; like so many Members, I too have traveled down to the border. The difference is I have done that many times over the last 12 years.

It has never been this bad; and I need to emphasize that. I encourage the President and the Vice President to visit the southern border, come to the Lower Rio Grande Valley and see for themselves, firsthand, just how bad this crisis is.

And then back to the business at hand. I want to be very clear about the two bills included in today's rule. Wage discrimination has no place in any society, and it is currently illegal in the United States of America.

The path Congress must take is to not increase opportunities for trial lawyers, but to continue its focus on strong economic policy that actually expands opportunities for all Americans.

Prior to the pandemic, nearly 75 million women participated in the workforce, more than at any other time in history. A robust and resilient economy will provide the jobs, provide the wages and the wage gains that Americans expect and deserve.

Also, workplace violence is a threat that no American should have to face. The threat is particularly high for healthcare workers and social service workers. These workers dedicate their lives to taking care of others, and they deserve to be taken care of in return.

While I support the goal of H.R. 1195, I believe it would benefit from further discussion to ensure that the timeline for issuing a rule and developing workplace violence prevention will produce the most effective and safe outcome for American workers.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, 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 gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak in opposition to H.R. 1868, but I also feel obligated to point out that you may say that the inflation rate is zero, but if you bought a gallon of gas, purchased a two-by- four at Home Depot, or bought a sack of Quikrete at Lowe's, you would know that inflation is a real phenomenon.

But I do rise in opposition to H.R. 1868. There was no effort made on the part of the majority party to work with Republicans on what should be a bipartisan priority, and that is provider relief.

I have heard from physicians and I have heard from hospitals in Texas that struggled financially throughout the pandemic. But the bill we have before us today is simply an excuse to wipe out the scorecard of the fiscal impact of this $1.9 trillion partisan package passed last week.

Last week, Republicans warned that this would threaten cuts to Medicare, but those warnings were repeatedly ignored. If the House majority really cared, if the House Democrats really cared about meaningful healthcare provider relief, they would have worked to gain Republican support, worked with us to build a bill from the ground up. Instead, this bill is coming toward us as a Hail Mary pass right before the Medicare sequester cuts go into effect in April.

As a physician, I have deep empathy for those whose medical practices have been impacted and are now struggling to stay open. I know I have helped many doctors, many clinics, navigate the Provider Relief Fund over this past year. We need targeted relief for the providers who are hurting, and some are hurting more than others.

I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1999, which is an alternative approach that adds over $12 billion to the Provider Relief Fund and ensures that dollars would flow to those doctors who have experienced lost revenue or increased cost.

This type of financial relief has already been proven successful. We passed the CARES Act on March 27 of last year. We know it's successful.

Additionally, this alternative bill ensures that the 4 percent cut to Medicare providers that was included in last week's reconciliation bill as a result of statutory paygo does not go into effect in 2022.

The American Rescue Plan Act gifted $350 billion to State and local governments that simply was not justified. Providers in our State and local communities are worthy of funding and they should specifically benefit from those State and local dollars that are not necessary to go where they are planned to go. That is why we would like to redirect the State and local funding toward provider relief.

Maintaining a strong healthcare workforce is critical to the health of this Nation during normal times, and it is especially critical during a public health emergency.

We should work together on the right policy solution to deliver this relief to ensure that it stands a chance of actually passing in the other body, and that should be a starting point for those discussions.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we can come to such a sensible solution.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I do have one of the en bloc amendments at the desk.

Madam Speaker, this amendment requires the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services to issue guidance on the issues identified by a Government Accountability Office report and the use of telehealth.

In 2018, the Energy and Commerce Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held an eye-opening hearing on sexual assault forensic examinations that highlighted gaps in training and care related to sexual assault forensic examinations. The Government Accountability Office testified at this hearing on its 2016 report on sexual assault forensic exams, which identified gaps in aspects of performing exams, training, leadership development, examiner program sustainability, and education of community stakeholders.

This amendment is simple, and it is common sense. The Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services must issue guidance on addressing the gaps identified by GAO.

In Texas, there have been efforts to utilize telehealth, including the Project ECHO model, to provide sexual assault forensic examinations and training. The nurses involved in these programs have established their success. I am sure States have employed other useful telehealth models that should be further explored as well.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that this amendment is endorsed by the International Association of Forensic Nurses, signaling its importance, and I urge support for this amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

First, the House considered the budget resolution setting the budget reconciliation instructions for this massive coronavirus relief bill. Then, the House considered and passed, on a partisan basis, the budget resolution authorizing a deficit increase of nearly $2 trillion. After an all-night vote-a-rama in the Senate, the House will consider this package for the third time.

Three times the House will have debated and passed a partisan package, and only 9 percent is dedicated to actually crushing the coronavirus. This isn't just disappointing; it is irresponsible, and it is unrepresentative of the American people.

Currently, Democrats only hold the majority by five Representatives. That means that the 211 Republicans, representing nearly 150 million Americans, have been shut out of this process; 150 million Americans are not represented in the package before us today.

Madam Speaker, we all want to provide the resources to successfully emerge on the other side of the pandemic. This bill does include funding for testing and vaccine deployment, as well as some economic support and aid to those who are unemployed or experiencing food shortages, but this support is not targeted toward those identified as most vulnerable.

This bill includes $1,400 in economic stimulus payments to anyone making $75,000 a year or less, including those who may not have lost their jobs or experienced reduced employment. In addition, there is no mechanism to ensure that these payments go only to American citizens.

Republicans were pleased that the infrastructure projects in California and New York, projects that had nothing to do with coronavirus relief, have been removed. We are glad of that.

My Democratic colleagues may argue that these projects would have created jobs, but why then are Democrats also providing $125 billion to schools even if they remain closed? Teachers want to teach. Teachers want to be safely in their classrooms teaching. The Centers for Disease Control has confirmed that with appropriate safety precautions, the risk of coronavirus transmission in schools is minimal. In fact, many States are prioritizing teachers for vaccines. Madam Speaker, our State of Texas is doing so. Why are we paying schools to keep them home?

This bill also provides $362 billion for State and local governments. The CARES Act, passed on March 27, already provided a $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund to help local entities with lost revenue during the shutdowns. However, many local authorities have chosen to keep their economies shut down, despite a drop in coronavirus cases and the effectiveness of safety measures like social distancing and mask- wearing.

Congress should not bail out State and local governments for mismanagement that occurred prior to the pandemic. The total revenue loss of State and local governments during the pandemic is $7.6 billion. This bill provides over $219 billion, and it is available until expended.

Let me say that again: It is available until expended. That is $200 billion more than the lost revenue due to the pandemic, the crisis which this bill is meant to target.

This bill also provides $400 million for an emergency food and shelter program, with $110 million set aside specifically for humanitarian relief to families and individuals encountered by Department of Homeland Security officials.

Since his first day in office, President Biden has worked to overturn the advances achieved by the Trump administration to limit border crossings by those undocumented, which is particularly concerning given that limited coronavirus testing is occurring along our Southern border. Just recently, over 100 individuals crossing without documentation tested positive for the coronavirus, but were subsequently released into the interior of the United States.

We cannot allow the desires of foreign nationals to come before the needs of American citizens. We should provide testing and personal protective equipment to all encountered along our Southern border so that we can protect our frontline officials and protect American communities.

These are only a few of the concerning provisions included in this so-called relief package, but the most concerning piece is that Republicans' participation in this process was extremely limited by Democrats. Bipartisanship is not unprecedented. We came together to pass prior coronavirus relief bills. Literally, 1 year ago, March of last year, we passed three bipartisan coronavirus relief packages through the House and the Senate. And we can do so again.

Why now are the Democrats deciding Republicans are not worthy, we are not worthy partners, and limiting the voices of our constituents?

Why should only half of the Congress be allowed to participate in the making of a law that will affect the entire country?

Is only half of the American population worth saving?

Those are the questions being asked today. With that, I urge opposition to the rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican leader, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Feenstra) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Cawthorn) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson), a valuable member of the Doctors Caucus, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte) for the purposes of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) for the purposes of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gimenez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Carl) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn), another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), another valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jacobs) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Hagedorn) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. C. Scott Franklin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), another valuable member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule to immediately consider H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, introduced by Mrs. Hinson from Iowa, to ensure that the $54.3 billion that Congress appropriated in December in order to help schools reopen is, in fact, prioritized to meet the expenses of actually being open for in-person learning.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), who is here to explain the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

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

Madam Speaker, here are the facts: This bill is not going to reopen our economy. It is not going to reopen our schools or provide targeted relief to those who need it most. This is the most expensive bill in the history of the United States House of Representatives, and it does not even prioritize the immediate needs of the American people. Rather than work for the American people, Democrats are fine working for their own future 2 years from now. That is really not the way it is supposed to be. We are supposed to be focused on the next generation, not the next election. I find this unacceptable.

This is a $1.9 trillion partisan wish list that could ultimately increase the deficit $3 trillion without addressing the immediate needs of Americans who are trying to survive this pandemic. With $1 trillion of unspent funding--cash already in the till from previous bills--why is it so urgent to pass another $2 trillion now without the representation of literally one-half of the country?

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and 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.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Madam Speaker, I am concerned about H.R. 1446, the Enhanced Background Checks Act, that is part of this rule. This bill would eliminate the 3-day waiting period for a National Instant Criminal Background Check system determination. Under current law, if no determination is made within 3 days, a firearms sale may proceed. This bill that will be before Congress this week would expand the 3 days to require a 10-business-day waiting period with an additional 10 days allowed for the Attorney General to process any petitions.

But rather than eliminate the 3-day waiting period, we should be removing from commerce those firearms that are sold to individuals who are later found to be ineligible.

In 2016 the Department of Justice Inspector General audit found that less than 1 percent of those who were sold a firearm and then found later to be ineligible through the delayed background check were investigated and prosecuted.

According to a 2018 Government Accountability Office report, the FBI conducted just over 25 million firearm background checks through the NICS system that year. One percent of attempted purchases were denied, or about 181,000. If only 1 percent of those denials were investigated, that still leaves 179,000 NICS denials where an individual may have been inappropriately sold a firearm, but, in fact, were never investigated. Even one firearm illegally in commerce, unfortunately, can lead to tragedy.

Rather than place further burdens on law-abiding gun owners, we should be investigating and prosecuting those who have obtained a firearm illegally. Enforcement of our existing laws would be the first step to preventing gun violence.

During rules consideration, I submitted an amendment to H.R. 1446 to require the Department of Justice Inspector General to report to Congress on the number of NICS denials referred for investigation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.

Madam Speaker, this will provide an accurate accounting of the inefficiencies in the NICS system and provide a starting point to ensure full enforcement of our laws.

I was pleased that this amendment was made in order, and I hope all Members will support it when it comes to the floor for a vote.

But the underlying bill, H.R. 1446, should not pass this House.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the recognition.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1, Burgess amendment No. 12, which would require the Attorney General of the United States to submit a report to Congress on the impact of widespread mail-in voting on the ability of Active Duty military servicemembers to vote, how quickly their votes could be counted, and whether the higher volumes of mail-in votes makes it harder for those individuals to vote in national elections.

America's servicemembers put their lives on the line to protect our country and everything it stands for. We must ensure their voices are heard in our elections. If the majority has their way with the underlying bill in permanently expanding mail-in voting, Congress must first know that such policies won't negatively impact those we rely on to ensure that our voices are heard in the first place.

A second amendment, Burgess amendment No. 13, would require a report on voter data collection efforts at local, State, and Federal levels, and make the resources necessary to defend such efforts from cyberattacks and the impact of potential data breaches of local, State, or Federal online voter registration systems.

H.R. 1, the underlying bill, includes the Voter Registration Modernization Act, which requires that all Americans have access to online voter registration, a significant expansion of this service in many parts of the country. Voter online registration can be quick, easy, and convenient. It also poses significant risks for those same citizens by increasing the cyber-infrastructure requirements at all levels of government and introduces cybersecurity challenges in areas that have not previously had online registration.

We are all familiar with the concept, if it goes on a network, it can be hacked. Data breaches pose a real threat to Americans' privacy, to their financial security. We have seen time and again how poor digital hygiene, or insufficient cybersecurity, have created new vulnerabilities to Americans' personally identifiable information.

Madam Speaker, Americans deserve to know how this mandate in the underlying bill will impact their local voting systems and their personal privacy. Many areas of the United States have successfully implemented online voter registration, and that could be great for those voters. However, many election precincts, and even some States, do not have adequate infrastructure or resources to ensure proper protection of the personally identifiable information that is required to be collected to register to vote.

This amendment would provide our constituents information to either provide a sense of security that their voter data will be properly protected or will serve as a warning as to how this could impact their voting system.

Madam Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' on both votes.

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

Madam Speaker, just before I begin, I also want to acknowledge that I had sent the chairman of the Rules Committee a letter earlier in the week, to which he today kindly responded, and I appreciate the prompt response to my concerns about Capitol security.

Madam Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021. Throughout this process, Republicans have been completely excluded. I sit on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I sit on the Budget Committee, and I sit on the Rules Committee, and throughout the markups in each of these committees Republicans offered sincere amendments to improve the bill for the American people.

While only 2 of the 245 Republican amendments offered were adopted, the rule before us today strips out the one amendment adopted by a rollcall vote.

Earlier today in the Rules Committee, over 200 amendments were offered and debated, not a single one was made in order. The American people at least deserve to have the suggestions of Members that they elected to be debated on the House floor. They don't have to be adopted, but they should at least be heard on the House floor. It seems that the Democrats are unwilling to allow elected Members of Congress to do their job and represent their constituents.

With $1 trillion of funding left unspent from the previous--from the

previous--coronavirus response bills, it does seem that we do have some time to do our work, but, instead, we didn't even hold markups on this portion of the bill.

While the Energy and Commerce Committee did hold a markup, all Republican amendments were defeated. This portion of the bill includes changes that will take months to implement, if indeed they happen at all. Perhaps the most startling figure is less than 10 percent of these dollars are actually spent on combating the coronavirus.

Despite spending over $14 billion on vaccines and therapeutics, after $28 billion was just recently provided in the fiscal year 2021 omnibus, this package does not contain any funding--zero funding--for the National Institutes of Health. The National Institutes of Health has been a critical partner in Operation Warp Speed and getting the vaccine through the approval process in literally warp speed time and helping the vaccine manufacturers in developing the coronavirus vaccine that we are now so urgently needing.

This legislation includes many provisions that really should be addressed outside of a coronavirus relief package, like providing a State option for postpartum Medicaid coverage for women. While this is a policy I have long advocated for, it should not be temporary, as this legislation directs it to sunset after 7 years. Let's bring that bill separately to the floor and get this policy right, just as we did in the last Congress.

Furthermore, although there are billions of dollars directed to public health, the Provider Relief Fund is curiously not replenished.

Again, why are we not supporting programs which we know work and we know provide direct, targeted relief?

The Provider Relief Fund is a program that works, and that is why I offered an amendment to add $35 billion to the Provider Relief Fund.

Adding to the partisan nature of this legislation is the lack of any Hyde protections ensuring that none of this funding is used to subsidize abortion. The Hyde amendment is a longstanding, bipartisan agreement. Instead, there is $50 million included for Title X Family Planning, which likely is going to go to Planned Parenthood and has nothing to do with coronavirus relief.

This is a $1.9 trillion partisan wish list that could ultimately increase the Federal deficit to between $2 trillion to $3 trillion without addressing the immediate needs of Americans simply trying to survive this pandemic.

So I would suggest that now is not the time to push through partisan priorities. Barely a month ago, Congress passed, and President Trump signed into law, a $900 billion coronavirus relief package. Combined with previous relief packages, which were bipartisan and which were worked on by both Democrats and Republicans in the last calendar year, there remains $1 trillion in unspent funding.

Why is it so urgent to pass another $2 trillion now?

It is reminiscent of our former colleague, Rahm Emanuel, who said: Never let a crisis go to waste.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), who is a valuable member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), who is another valuable member of the Texas delegation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the Chair for that reminder.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the ranking member of the House Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), a valuable member of our Appropriations Committee and a subcommittee ranking member.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis).

Madam speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. C. Scott Franklin).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

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

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

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule to strike the consideration of the Pelosi payoff bill, and instead, consider H.R. 1371, the Crush the Virus Act, introduced by Representative Tom Reed, which is attached, and will provide over $160 billion to expand the administration of vaccines and provide direct relief for the coronavirus.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gonzalez), who is here to explain the amendment.

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I recognize the critical work that was done by the Congressional Doctors Caucus on this effort. The thesis was that we are going to crush the coronavirus.

You think that you would want to involve the people who left the world of healthcare providing to come and serve in the people's House.

Unfortunately, those amendments that were thoughtfully introduced were rejected at the Committee on Rules.

We had amendments, such as allowing the FDA to use real-world evidence in their evaluation of the emergency use authorization that is currently pending.

We were going to reduce the Medicaid payment error rate, which seemed like a good idea.

Medicaid home- and community-based services, substance use disorder treatment, and mental health services were to be expanded.

The public health workforce allowing for loan repayment was rejected.

An amendment providing for coronavirus testing at the southern border--we know we have got a problem with increased people coming across the southern border without authorization. President Biden has indicated that he is welcoming that, but as a consequence, we need to be certain that we are protecting Americans from the introduction of the coronavirus. This was a measure to allow for increased testing on the southern border, but we couldn't accept that.

Hyde protections, you have heard many people talk about that. That was rejected at the Committee on Rules, with a variety of amendments.

Dr. Miller-Meeks had an amendment to allow for the standardized testing to go on in classrooms this next year, not using it to reduce payments to schools that don't measure up but using it as a diagnostic test. Let's find out how far behind some of our classrooms are.

All of these were thoughtful amendments introduced by the GOP Doctors Caucus. Unfortunately, all were rejected. You would think if you wanted to crush the coronavirus, you would ask your doctor.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, in closing, it doesn't look like this bill is going to open our economy. It is not going to open our schools. It is not going to provide targeted relief to those who need it most. I am willing to talk about nutritional assistance, but what I am not willing to talk about is a gilded underground railway under Silicon Valley.

Madam Speaker, this is one of the most expensive bills in the history of the people's House. And it doesn't prioritize the immediate needs of the American people. Rather than work for the American people, Democrats are working for their own future 2 years from now. I think that is unacceptable.

Look, I recognize that President Biden has worked hard to make vaccines more available, but the very vaccines he's making available are the ones that President Trump worked so hard to get developed and into production.

Let's acknowledge success where it has occurred. I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can offer the amendment. I am going to urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, a ``no'' vote on the underlying measures.

Madam Speaker, 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.

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

Madam Speaker, today's rule deems the Senate version of the budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 5, as passed. Last night, the Senate considered this measure, along with hundreds of amendments. The House passed its version, H. Con. Res. 11, on Wednesday. The two measures are largely the same, but because the Senate version has minor changes, we find ourselves once again considering a measure that the House has already passed.

Even though we are once again considering a rule for the budget resolution, we will not actually debate and pass because this rule deems the resolution as passed. I think it is important for Members to recognize: This is

your only vote on adding nearly $2 trillion to the deficit.

If this is the way we are going to achieve the passage of a budget resolution, why don't we take more time to negotiate a better product for the American people? Instead, we spent hours on what has amounted to procedural votes. The House has had little to say in the resolution outlining the reconciliation instructions by simply deeming the Senate version in this rule.

As I mentioned on Tuesday, budget reconciliation is a fast-track tool used to implement policy changes into law requiring only 51 votes in the Senate to pass.

Senator Sanders has stated the budget reconciliation does not have to be a partisan process. I actually agree with that. But that is exactly what this resolution sets up. Democrats control the House and the Senate and the White House, so we don't need to work with the Republicans on a resolution to benefit Americans.

Democrats previously promised $2,000 stimulus checks, billions for State and local governments, expansion of Medicaid, pension bailouts, added unemployment benefits, implementation of a Green New Deal, passed the citizenship for illegal aliens, lowering Medicaid-age eligibility, providing universal basic income, increasing the minimum wage, and canceling student loan debt.

But as we have seen in previous relief packages, many stimulus checks went to individuals who had actually kept their jobs or had no decrease in their pay. These checks could have been sent to those most in need, those who lost their jobs or are struggling to find work.

In addition, many State and local governments are in the red due to mismanagement of their budgets. This actually occurred before the pandemic began and now taxpayers are being asked to bail them out for that fiscal mismanagement that actually was decades in the making.

While Americans should be able to compete for a livable wage, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour really does put some people at a disadvantage. Fast-food workers are now paid at the same level as paramedics though the training for those two jobs is clearly different.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, raising the minimum wage without considering market conditions could result in the loss of well over a million jobs. Student loan repayments are currently paused, but canceling that debt altogether harms individuals who have already paid back their loans and places that burden on the taxpayer. It also sends a message that you do not have to be responsible for the debt that you accumulate.

These policies are part of President Biden's $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package that could ultimately increase the deficit between $2- and $3 trillion. But it does not address the immediate needs of the Americans who are trying to survive the pandemic. So now is not the time to push through partisan priorities.

Barely a month ago, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law a $900 billion coronavirus relief package. Combined with previous relief packages--and there have been several: three in March, one in April, one in December--and there remains $1 trillion in unspent funding.

As I pointed out on Tuesday, there have been few efforts to conduct oversight on this massive amount of funding.

In addition, yesterday, Larry Summers, President Clinton's Treasury Secretary and an economic adviser to President Obama, published an opinion piece outlining the risk of President Biden's massive $1.9 trillion package. Secretary Summers points out that the 2009 stimulus was about half as large as the estimated economic output shortfall.

In contrast, the already enacted $900 billion stimulus Congress passed in December will fill the gap three times over. To make this even more clear, the output shortfall due to the pandemic is estimated between $20- and $50 billion a month. The $900 billion stimulus will total $150 billion a month.

So you have to ask again: Why is it suddenly so urgent that we pass another $2 trillion bill?

I am pleased that on a few amendments considered last night in the Senate, the Senate came together. It appears to support not increasing the minimum wage during the pandemic; not moving the United States Embassy in Israel from Jerusalem; and not providing economic stimulus payments to undocumented or illegal aliens.

I am disappointed that the Senate Democrats defeated an amendment that would have prohibited a carbon tax, meaning a large tax increase is likely coming.

Despite the largely partisan nature of these budget resolution proceedings, there exists examples of bipartisanship. Now is the time to simply focus on policy and determine the best way forward for our country.

Republicans do stand ready to work with Democrats. Last March, last April there was considerable agreement on the way forward. But while Republicans do stand ready to work with Democrats to provide these resources for the American people, we must ensure that all proposals are thoroughly examined and will be implemented in a way that helps rather than harms our recovery.

Despite calling for unity, the first move by President Biden and the Democrats is to employ a partisan process and jam through a wish list of policy priorities. I sincerely hope that the committees tasked with complying with the budget reconciliation instructions will engage in a more bipartisan manner.

With that, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I do need to say one thing. A year ago, the gentleman had the opportunity to be in the same briefings that all of us were in. These were bipartisan briefings over in the Capitol Visitor Center. All of the experts in public health came and talked to us about the dangerous waters ahead because of this plague coming out of China.

And there could be no mistaking the difficulties that were ahead, but this was information that was available to all of us. It was not information that was secret or waived by the previous administration, not shared. It was here that we were given that same information.

Unfortunately, I sit on one of the authorizing committees that is responsible for pandemic preparedness. Did we do a single thing on a hearing basis during the month of February? The answer is no. We added on 1 hour to the end of a budget hearing at the end of February and by the middle of March, we had to suspend all activity in the Congress because of the pandemic.

We squandered the weeks that were available to us. The President bought us some time by cutting off foreign travel from China. The problem is that we, as the House of Representatives and Democratic leadership in my committee, did not use that time effectively.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack), a valuable new freshman Member.

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

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to encourage local educational agencies to resume in-person instruction at elementary and secondary schools.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Steel), who is here to explain the amendment. I welcome her to the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), the lead Republican on our House Budget Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, to recover from the pandemic, really, it is not a good idea to push through policies that don't address the immediate needs of the American people. The budget reconciliation resolution provided for in this rule will drastically increase the deficit and seek to implement nonessential partisan policies without first conducting hearings and oversight to ensure that current funding is spent effectively and efficiently.

It is disappointing, after calling for unity just a little over 2 weeks ago in the front of this Capitol Building by the President, that the first move is to employ this partisan process.

It is now up to the committees crafting the reconciliation legislation to work in a bipartisan manner. I sincerely hope that they do, but it has been disappointing so far. And if the past is prelude, I don't think we will look forward to this being a bipartisan process.

Madam Speaker, I do want to remind Members that this will be a vote on the rule, but you will not get a vote on the resolution. Bear that in mind. The vote on the rule expands the deficit by $1.9 to $2.9 trillion.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule. 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.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman, and congratulate him for the chairmanship of the Western Caucus, and I appreciate being included in this discussion this evening.

Madam Speaker, on the way over here, here is a bit of breaking news: POLITICO, in their online newsletter, 6:30 tonight, the headline: ``Biden's plans for recovery imperiled by swelling ranks of long-term jobless.''

First sentence reads:

Millions of Americans are staring at the reality of long-

term unemployment, a precarious and worsening situation that

threatens to drag on the economic recovery after the pandemic

ends.

You know what, I remember when Democrats used to be the champion of the working class, the champion of the working man and woman.

Long-term unemployment is so damaging to people's families and people's lives. Suspending the production on Federal lands--granted Texas doesn't have the amount of Federal lands that some of the other Western States do, but still, it affects us.

And Todd Staples, our former agriculture commissioner in the State of Texas--now the head of the Texas Oil and Gas Association--writes in January: ``Banning energy development on Federal lands and in offshore waters not only threatens thousands of the best-paying jobs, but needlessly erases much-needed revenue that helps pay for schools and other essential services,'' so said Todd Staples, the president of Texas Oil and Gas Association.

Going on: ``American oil and natural gas is safe, clean and abundant, and misguided policies will only stifle our Nation's energy and environmental progress.'' A million jobs across the country--120,000 of those in the State of Texas alone.

And as we heard from our colleague, Ms. Herrell, it does affect tax revenues for local activities in our schools, building our highways.

Todd Staples went on to say:

The oil and natural gas industry is producing energy in

cleaner and more efficient ways than 10 to 15 years ago, all

while producing more affordable and reliable energy to power

our daily lives. Increased use of natural gas is the number

one reason the United States power sector cut carbon dioxide

emissions 33 percent.

Now, look, everybody talks about going to electric cars. Where is the electricity going to come from? Well, some of it is going to come from natural gas, natural gas-fired power plants.

But, again, I do remember when the Democratic party used to be the party of the working man and woman. I question why President Biden has strayed so far from that. A little over 2 weeks ago, he said, on the western steps of this Capitol building, that his number

one priority was going to be American jobs. And then he immediately causes immeasurable harm to millions of Americans.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for leading this hour and for letting me participate.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Argyle High School Football Team, the Argyle Eagles, and their victory at the 4A Division 1 championship.

After an undefeated 15-game season punctuated by remarkable skill, commitment, and diligence, the Argyle Eagles qualified for their UIL conference's Division I championship in December 2020. With a strong showing at the final game in Arlington's AT&T stadium, the team secured the state title for the second time in its history.

Led by head coach Todd Rodgers, Defensive MVP Zach Stewart, and Offensive MVP Tito Byce, the team's unbroken series of successes in the 2020 season culminated in their outstanding victory last month.

The teamwork, tenacity, and effort demonstrated by the Argyle Eagles team and coaches is highly commendable. In spite of the many challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic, the team, through diligence both on and off the field, overcame their obstacles and achieved their ultimate goal. I am happy to see the team's estimable fortitude be rewarded with another state title.

I congratulate the coaches and players of the Argyle High School Football Team for their admirable achievement in the 2020 football season, and for their exemplary devotion to both their team and their sport. I am privileged to be able to join the Argyle community, parents, family and friends who faithfully supported the team's efforts, as they celebrate this accomplishment, and I wish them well in all their future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding performance of Denton ISD's Ryan High School Football Team, the Ryan Raiders, during the 2020 football season.

In the past year, the team's prowess and exceptional diligence led them to an undefeated season, culminating in a victory at the Conference 5A Division 1 Championship on January 15, 2021. After facing an intense series of preliminary games, the Ryan Raiders finally secured the state title in their game against Cedar Park at Arlington's AT&T stadium.

Led by head coach Dave Henigan, Defensive MVP Ty Marsh, and Offensive MVP Seth Henigan, the team attained its first state championship victory since 2002. The exemplary commitment, teamwork, and effort displayed by the players, coaches, and coordinators of the Ryan Raiders earned them the state title.

The coaches and players of the Ryan High School Football Team overcame pressures and challenges amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and successfully achieved the pinnacle of their season. I am privileged to join their community, family and friends in celebrating their achievement and to recognize each and every one of them for their laudable devotion to their team and their sport. I wish them all the best in their future endeavors.

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

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of two pieces of legislation. The first, H.R. 447, is the National Apprenticeship Act. The bill seeks to improve and streamline access to apprenticeships. These goals are broadly supported by Members on both sides of the political aisle, in the House and in the Senate.

We considered an almost identical bill in the 116th Congress, which was the previous Congress. At that time, Republicans expressed a desire to work together to achieve the goal of modernizing the National Apprenticeship Program. Since then, the Democrats have pushed through their bill that did nothing to streamline the program, nothing for flexibility for employer-driven apprenticeships.

The bill before us today is largely the same. Rather than work with Republicans in a meaningful way, the majority remains committed to codifying decades of rigid regulations and red tape. The Committee on Education and Labor did not even have a hearing or a markup on this bill before it came before the Committee on Rules, essentially shutting out committee Republicans from the negotiation process entirely--many of whom were new members on the Committee on Education and Labor and did not participate in the discussion in the last Congress.

Mr. Speaker, between 2009 and 2019, America saw a 128 percent growth in apprenticeships. In September of 2020, the Department of Labor reported that 94 percent of all apprentices who completed their apprenticeship received an average annual salary of $70,000. Today's registered apprenticeship system is an important tool for job seekers and employers.

It does have some flaws, however. In 2019, 252,000 individuals began an apprenticeship. Good for them, but only 81,000 graduated.

This bill would make the apprenticeship system the only registered and Department of Labor-supported apprenticeship option, shutting the door on opportunities for those who participate in nonregistered earn- and-learn programs. While so many in the Nation have lost work due to the economic toll of the pandemic, now is not the time to make it harder to find adequate training by reducing an individual's apprenticeship options.

Mr. Speaker, the National Apprenticeship Act would make this system even less receptive to innovation and create prescriptive requirements on apprenticeships. It also makes it difficult for small and medium- sized businesses to participate, as they do not always have the resources to navigate the lengthy and Byzantine Department of Labor registration process.

America desperately needs more lab technicians. We need more medical assistants. We need more pharmacy technicians. In the middle of a global public health crisis, we cannot afford to stymie motivated future employees.

Republicans agree that this 80-year-old system can and must be improved, but the solutions must be targeted and effective. The majority claims that the increased funding in this legislation will create 1 million apprenticeships. While it is true that the legislation provides significantly more funding, unfortunately, more money alone doesn't guarantee better outcomes if the underlying systems don't work in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, the second part of this rule provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 11, establishing a budget for fiscal year 2021, and providing the budget reconciliation instructions for fiscal years 2021 through 2030. Budget reconciliation is a fast-track, budgetary tool used to implement policy changes into law. This procedure requires only 51 votes in the Senate--not the normal 60 votes to break the filibuster, but only 51 votes in the Senate--which, unfortunately, can turn this into a partisan exercise, which is what happened here today.

President Biden has proposed a $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package, but under the reconciliation instructions included in the resolution, the deficit would increase to between $2 trillion and $3 trillion.

Look, on the west front of the Capitol 2 weeks ago, the President called for unity--his first move. And, today, we see the Democrats employing a partisan process to jam through their wish list of policy priorities.

The Budget Committee has not yet even organized as a committee, but the Committee on Rules adopted a rule to consider budget reconciliation without any prior hearings or markups. This will be the first time since 1974 that Congress has bypassed the Budget Committee and gone straight to the floor with a budget resolution.

In addition, the Democrats did not pass a budget resolution at all for fiscal year 2021. So the budget resolution before us today is exactly 290 days late.

Barely 1 month ago, Congress passed--and President Trump signed into law--a $900 billion coronavirus relief package. Combined with previous relief packages--and there were many--there remains $1 trillion in unspent funding. To my knowledge, there have been very few, if any, authorizing and oversight hearings to account for what funds are needed and how these funds have been spent and ensure they are being used in a way that best benefits the American people.

With all of that as background, then you have to ask yourself: ``Why is it now so urgent to pass another $2 trillion bill?''

Well, the answer lies in the progressive, partisan policy priorities that the majority wants to push through, including raising taxes, increasing the minimum wage, implementing the Green New Deal, providing a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, lowering Medicare eligibility, providing universal basic income, and canceling student loan debt.

But these policies do not address the immediate needs of Americans who are trying to survive the pandemic. Now is not the time to push partisan priorities.

Look, Republicans do stand ready to work with Democrats to provide the needed resources for the American people. Yesterday's visit by 10 Republican senators to the Oval Office and the time that President Biden spent with them certainly should be indicative to people that there is a willingness to work together to solve the problems of the country, but we also are obligated to ensure that the proposals are thoroughly vetted and will be implemented in a way that actually helps rather than further harms our recovery.

Mr. Speaker, I would add that Mr. Morelle referenced some of the other things contained in the rule. I think it is important that Members understand the threats under which we operate. As such, I, frankly, do not understand why we have not been provided a classified briefing by the Speaker of the House as to what the threats were prior to January 6 and what the threats are going forward. Suffice it to say, that the people's House--the House of Representatives--now is completely on lockdown. There are no people in the people's House other than the Representatives, and that is not the way it was intended.

I think we are owed an explanation for what the level of threat is so that we may adequately prepare ourselves in our personal lives, as well as our work in our districts. I would call upon the Speaker to make such a bipartisan Member briefing available as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my new favorite ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Feenstra), who is a new, freshman member of the Republican Conference, to give what I believe is his first speech on the House floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to encourage local educational agencies to resume in- person instruction in elementary and secondary schools.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), who is here to explain the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa.

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

Mr. Speaker, Republicans agree that apprenticeships are vital to American livelihoods and our national interests. We agree that reforms to these programs are necessary and prudent. It is time to update the apprenticeship program to better reflect the needs of employers and the needs of our Nation. Republicans stand ready to negotiate. Now is the time to give Americans opportunities to succeed, and I sincerely hope that we will do just that.

To recover from this pandemic, we must also not push through policies that do not address the immediate needs of the American people. The budget reconciliation resolution provided for in this rule will drastically increase the deficit and seek to implement nonessential partisan policy priorities without first conducting the necessary authorization hearings and conducting the necessary oversight to ensure that current funding is spent effectively and efficiently.

After the multiple calls for unity, it is disappointing that the first move that we are seeing from the majority in this Congress is to employ this partisan procedural process. I do hope they reconsider and come back to the negotiating table through regular order.

Let me just also ask again that the Speaker allow Members to be briefed by the appropriate law enforcement agencies as to exactly what the threats are here in the Nation's Capital. I think we would all benefit from that not just in our work here in Washington, D.C., but also when we work with constituents and staff back in our districts.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, a ``no'' vote on the rule, and a ``no'' vote on the underlying measures.

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.