Michelle Fischbach

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. We are here to speak up for the unborn. We hear their cry, and we will continue to fight and hear the unborn. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest), who with the House Congressional Pro-Life Caucus chair, Chris Smith, helped lead the amicus brief in support of Mississippi's Dobbs case. The amicus brief was joined by more than 200 Members of Congress, including myself, and urged the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Congressman from Mississippi was instrumental in that fight.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Guest for all of his work in defense of the unborn. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt), the Values Action Team chair and a longstanding protector of life.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all the work Mr. Aderholt has done. We will continue our fight, and we will continue our work to protect unborn life. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Grothman for his words and his commitment to the unborn. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), a champion of life, the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, and my friend.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his steadfast commitment to the unborn and strong support of the right to life. Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues who spoke this evening for standing up to give a voice to the voiceless unborn children, for standing up for life. Our Conference will continue to be strong for mothers and their unborn children. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee and my friend from Oklahoma for yielding me the time and for the experiences we have had on Rules in the last year. Mr. Speaker, for far too long Democrats have run roughshod over the norms and practices of the people's House, weaponizing our rules to insulate themselves and protect their allies in the Biden administration from proper oversight. That ends today. I thank the chairman, Speaker McCarthy, and our leadership for spending countless hours putting together this package that better reflects the historical practices of this institution while receiving feedback to ensure the work we do is by the people and for the people. There are numerous items that I truly believe are vast improvements from the previous 2 years, but I will focus on three. First and foremost, this package finally ends the ludicrous pandemic procedures that have done lasting, if not permanent, damage to this institution. Legislating requires us to see each other eye-to-eye in order to understand where the other is coming from. Remote proceedings and a locked-down Capitol have reduced this institution to a computer screen, and the work product has deteriorated as a result. It is long past time for us to get back to work. Second, the rules package finally creates a more transparent process by which we legislate. As then-Chairman McGovern once said, ``a lousy process leads to bad legislating.'' Today, through a mandatory 72-hour rule, we allow more thoughtful and deliberate consideration that will improve what we pass out of this House. Finally, this rules package helps restore some fiscal sanity. Over the past 2 years, the American people have been hindered by out-of- control spending by the government and now our constituents are saddled with trillions in debt and the highest inflation levels in a generation. House Republicans today will once again ensure the Federal budget operates like any other, requiring offsets for any additional spending increase, eliminating budget gimmicks, and requiring inflationary analyses of the bills we consider. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand by my friend and colleague from Oklahoma in support of this package, and I urge Members to do the same.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), and the chair of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we are here to discuss the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 9640 and S. 1942, bills that we were notified of less than 2 hours ago. The process leading up to this debate has been not just unacceptable, but beneath this body. It seems the leadership of this Congress is determined to disappoint us right up to the bitter end. S. 1942, the National Heritage Area Act, establishes a national heritage area system, attempting to standardize the process for studying and establishing new national heritage areas. This bill could likely go by suspension and enjoy support from Members on both sides of the aisle. Why we are called to meet on this bill with less than 2 hours' notice that could otherwise go by suspension is beyond me and is indicative of how this majority has run this body for the last 2 years. H.R. 9640 is a supposed discussion draft, or at least described as such by my colleagues in the majority, but it was introduced today. Not last week, not a month ago, not even yesterday. It was introduced today. The bill supposedly justifies a legislative purpose required by the Democrats' year-long crusade to weaponize the IRS to punish a political opponent. It requires the release of Presidential tax returns by the IRS and requires audits of returns submitted by such Presidents. And that supposed discussion? Yesterday, the Ways and Means Committee met and went into executive session to meet on releasing a report on the IRS' mandatory audit program. During the executive session, Republicans were told repeatedly that the chair would not permit any amendments to be offered on the report. Even though the committee was in executive session for approximately 5 hours, the chair abruptly reversed course and told the Members that amendments would be available about 10 minutes prior to the final vote on making these documents public. This left Members without options to draft and offer amendments with any notice. Democrats included multiple attachments to this report, one being a discussion draft of the bill we are considering today. Democrat staff told Republican committee staff that no exception on this legislation would be considered before the end of the year. And we learned this supposed discussion draft would be coming to the floor in a statement by Speaker Pelosi. Of course, as is this leadership's custom, this bill had no hearing and no markup. To put it generously, this process has been a disaster, but it is unfortunate how my colleagues have run this institution. I would also note that the rule today deems an unvetted and controversial resolution that reaffirms Federal preemption of State laws regarding mail order abortion pills. This has never been mentioned, but it is in this rule. Whether this Federal preemption was ever affirmed is questionable, but whether this resolution actually speaks for the body should be debated on the floor, not snuck in through legislative smoke and mirrors. Meanwhile, constituents in my district are struggling under the crippling effects of inflation, diesel shortages, an increasingly emboldened regulatory state, and a Democrat majority that continues to focus punishment on their political opponents instead of the needs of Americans. This is a shameful use of our time, and I look forward to next year. Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule and ask Members to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. From beginning to end, this Democratic leadership has been in disarray. It is pathetic to see them do anything they can to discuss their favorite former President one last time before losing the majority. The bills we are debating today have gone through none of the required processes, and Republicans have been given no time to provide input. They have also added things that are highly controversial with no discussion. This is just the death throes of the Trump-obsessed soon-to-be minority. I oppose this rule, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, earlier this year Congressman Emmer and I introduced legislation to honor the three Minnesota National Guardsmen who were tragically killed on December 5, 2019, when their helicopter experienced engine failure. Chief Warrant Officer Charles P. Nord was just 30 years old and led a full and happy life with his wife, Kaley, and their daughter, Lydia, and he was very excited for the arrival of his son, Jack. He found his calling as a medevac helicopter pilot and also as a crop sprayer, and often said he felt like he had landed his dream job. He is deeply missed by the many close friends and family he made in the service and in his community. H.R. 6220 would name the post office in Perham, Minnesota, in honor of Chief Warrant Officer Nord's service and sacrifice. It is my honor to memorialize him and his service this way. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, Chief Warrant Officer James A. Rogers was born and raised in western Minnesota, graduating from St. Cloud State University earlier in 2019. He joined the Minnesota Army National Guard in June 2009 and deployed twice to Kuwait in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. While there, he conducted medical evacuations. He was a true patriot and was a valued member of his team. Those who served with him said he was the jokester of the group and a top-notch soldier. He is greatly missed by his fellow servicemembers, friends, and family in Winsted. H.R. 6221 would memorialize Chief Warrant Officer Rogers' name by naming the post office in Winsted, Minnesota, after him, a small token of appreciation for his sacrifice. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill in honor of this young man. We can never honor our fallen the way they truly deserve, but every step we can take is a meaningful one.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Representative from Massachusetts for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, we are here to discuss H.R. 3648, the Equal Access to Green Cards for Legal Employment, or the EAGLE Act, and H.R. 7946, the Veteran Service Recognition Act. The EAGLE Act would do away with country caps for certain employment- based green cards. Unfortunately, the bill we are debating today changes a carefully negotiated and agreed-upon bill from last Congress, favoring a Democrat go-it-alone approach that, unfortunately, we have seen all too often in this body over the last 2 years. One of the most shocking changes is the exclusion of critical language to prevent those associated with the Chinese Communist Party or the Chinese armed forces from admission to these immigration programs. When this came through the Judiciary Committee, Congressman Bishop offered an amendment to add language that once again clarified that CCP members are ineligible to participate in these programs. That amendment failed on a party-line vote. We all know the CCP is not a good-faith actor, and I am appalled that the majority would risk our national security by rejecting that amendment. H.R. 7946, the Veteran Service Recognition Act, aims to establish a program within the DHS for noncitizens to receive citizenship through service in the military. Based on the title, it sounds like a good bill. Of course, those who served honorably in the Armed Forces should be honored for their valor and sacrifice. But despite the title, this bill did not even go through the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Why? Because it is just one more example of the Democrats exploiting a sympathetic population to push their open border policies. They should be ashamed. I will also point out that there are already procedures in place by which noncitizen servicemembers can be rewarded for their sacrifices for this country. The Immigration and Nationality Act established special avenues to naturalize members or veterans in the U.S. military. These procedures have been in place since 2002. Under the current INA, it rightfully does not offer this opportunity to those who are dishonorably discharged or those who have committed a serious crime. But the bill we are discussing today, either through poor drafting or purposeful vagueness, does offer a citizenship path to those people. In the Judiciary Committee, several amendments were offered to ensure dangerous criminals did not receive an adjustment of immigration status, amendments that included crimes like illicit trafficking in firearms and human trafficking, and each amendment failed. Why are my colleagues across the aisle so eager to have criminals on the streets of our communities? This bill doesn't even apply to just veterans. It would expand protections for noncitizen family members of veterans, who would otherwise be deported for committing crimes. Drug smugglers, human traffickers, and domestic abusers who never even served in our Armed Forces would be allowed to avoid deportation because of this bill. I am also concerned that this bill relies heavily on the interpretation of the Secretary of Homeland Security. As it is written, DHS does not have to deport nearly anyone, leaving it to the DHS Secretary to exercise discretion in almost all cases. Secretary Mayorkas has done nothing to ease the immigration crisis in this country. Do we really want to give someone like that more responsibility? I am skeptical that an individual who can't even admit that the border is not secure will treat this increased discretion in a manner that is required to keep our communities safe. Before I reserve, I will note that the rule before us provides no Republican amendments in order, continuing a trend by this majority of stifling debate and suppressing the minority party's opportunity to offer changes or ideas to improve the underlying bills. Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason I oppose the rule, and I ask Members to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to comment on the so-called gimmicky amendments. I don't see it as gimmicky when we are trying to stop criminals from staying in our country. I don't see it as gimmicky when we are trying to stop human traffickers. I don't see it as gimmicky when we are trying to stop those who have trafficked firearms. I don't see that as gimmicky. I see that as trying to protect the people of the country and making sure that we do not allow criminals to continue to stay in our country. As for the issue of current law, if it is the case that those associated with the CCP are already not allowed under current law, then there is no issue to just put this in the bill just in case and make sure that we have satisfied the concerns of people who are concerned about allowing those CCP members into the country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time. This majority all too often uses flowery titles to mask the bill's true meaning. The Veteran Service Recognition Act is another one of these examples. It leads the public to believe we are looking at a bill that would recognize the service of our veterans. But once again, when you take a closer look, it becomes painfully clear that this is another push for open borders. This bill intends to pave a far broader pathway to citizenship not just for veterans. A path already exists for veterans since 2002, but this bill opens a path to criminals, something Democrats rejected every opportunity they had to keep criminals out of the program. In just 2 short years, the American people have watched as the situation at the southern border has deteriorated into nothing short of a crisis. I would have hoped that my colleagues would treat this situation a little more seriously, but unfortunately, I have come to expect nothing less. This bill is just one more example of how deeply unserious my colleagues in the majority are of addressing the disaster at our southern border. I oppose this rule, and I ask Members to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a staple in Minnesota's farm community, Frank Schiefelbein. Frank passed away earlier this week on his beloved farm. Frank, better known as ``Big Frank,'' led a life centered around faith, family, farming, friends, and food. He started his Angus herd, now the largest in the State, in the late 1950s with the mission of making the perfect steak. He met his wife, Frosty, when he was only 16 years old. Through their 69 years of marriage, they raised 9 sons and have 32 grandchildren and 31 great-grandchildren to carry on his legacy. He truly left an impression on everyone he met, and he will be greatly missed by everyone.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank the Representative from Pennsylvania for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, we are here to consider House Resolution 1464, providing for the consideration of the Speak Out Act, among other provisions. Let me be clear: House Republicans agree that victims of sexual harassment and assault deserve justice. Unfortunately, due to the fact that this bill is poorly drafted and questionable findings from the Senate bill remain that were specifically stripped out of the House version during Judiciary markup, there are still several legitimate concerns surrounding the unintended consequences of H.R. 8227, the Speak Out Act. We must maintain respect for the victims and their privacy. Making settlements less valuable to defendants by making confidentiality provisions unenforceable could leave victims worse off. This bill may force victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment to take their claims to court in a public process, but some victims may be reluctant to speak out in any form if they know that their stories will be public. Furthermore, removing the benefit of confidentiality may remove the incentives that defendants have to settle and give them more reason to fight harder in court, which may not be in the plaintiff's best interest. The bill is also worded in a way that may also apply to certain post- dispute nondisclosure and non-disparagement clauses, broadly making both predispute and post-dispute nondisclosure and non-disparagement clauses unenforceable and may affect existing settlements. This begs the question: What is the point of drawing up a contract if Congress will eventually step in after the fact and invalidate it? What is more, this bill would effectively impose a new regulatory floor that comes from the top down, overtaking the role of the State. Republicans do not believe in a one-size-fits-all approach, especially in this case, where it may do more harm than good for these victims. This legislation should remind us all to think carefully about federalism and when Congress should enact Federal regulatory floors. States have traditionally decided how to regulate contract clauses, and some have already passed laws to regulate these specific clauses relating to sexual harassment and assault. The bill even uses State and Tribal laws to define terms within it, but this bill should supersede those State decisions in some cases. Though I believe this bill is well-intentioned, it would be a mistake to rush to pass it as is, where significant concerns need to be addressed. Madam Speaker, it is for those reasons I oppose this rule and ask Members to do the same. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, as I said in my opening remarks, the bill under consideration by this rule is well-intentioned but flawed. It deserves additional time to thoughtfully consider legitimate concerns. House Republicans are committed to ensuring victims of sexual violence receive the justice they are entitled to, but that does not mean the flaws outlined should be ignored. Madam Speaker, again, I oppose the rule, and I encourage Members to do the same. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are here to debate the rule providing for consideration of three bills: H.R. 7780, Mental Health Matters Act; H.R. 3843, Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act; and S. 3969, Protection and Advocacy for Voting Access, or PAVA, Program Inclusion Act. H.R. 3843 would increase funding to the Federal Trade Commission without justification or restrictions on that funding. This is the same agency that, through its strategic plan for the next 4 years, removed a longstanding clause that states the agency will not unduly burden legitimate business activity. In the coming term, the Supreme Court will hear a case as to whether the FTC is mission creeping beyond the bounds of its constitutional authority. The FTC, through its initiatives in antitrust enforcement, has taken an increasing liberal view of its traditional focus on protecting consumers from fraud and ensuring businesses have clear rules to follow and is instead moving toward an interpretation of reshaping the American economy through enforcement action. In the Committee on the Judiciary, my colleagues offered amendments to put limitations on this funding. Mr. Roy offered an amendment to prohibit appropriated funds from being used to promote critical race theory and one to require funds to be used to enforce antitrust laws as defined in the Clayton Act. Mr. Fitzgerald offered one to prohibit funds from being used for non- enforcement activities. Mr. Bishop offered one to limit the scope of the bill to only apply to mergers involving large technology companies. All of these failed on party lines, and I can't understand why, unless my colleagues on the left want to encourage the FTC to get involved in issues outside of its purview. The FTC is out of control under this administration and cannot be trusted with these additional resources. H.R. 7780 misses the mark. Republicans are committed to addressing the mental health crisis facing young people in the country. Unfortunately, this bill is another one-size-fits-all proposal that fails to provide local leaders with the flexibility they need to address the unique problems they face. Republicans support mental health parity, but this bill will actually do the opposite. It opens insurers and employers to lawsuits when they voluntarily offer to provide mental health care benefits. As with so many bills promoted by the majority this Congress, provisions of this bill ban arbitration clauses, class action waivers, and representation waivers, discouraging other means of settling disputes and pushing creating even more bottlenecks in our judicial system. During markup, Republicans offered an alternative bill that streamlined existing programs, helped the needs on the ground, helped all students in need regardless of where their school is, and included important accountability metrics. I wish we were discussing that bill here today. Unfortunately, this and every other Republican amendment is effectively blocked from discussion under this rule. Mr. Speaker, it is for that reason that I oppose the rule and ask Members to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will offer an amendment to the rule allowing for the immediate consideration of H.R. 6184, the HALT Fentanyl Act. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.