Michelle Fischbach

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I have not heard any compelling arguments for pushing either of these bills forward because the flaws are clear. We cannot create a one-size- fits-all election system imposed from Washington that requires States to provide automatic same-day voter registration, prevents States from removing dormant voters from rolls, and overrides State ID laws. The Freedom to Vote Act would also guarantee public dollars would go into certain candidates' coffers. This is all nothing more than a partisan play for the Democrats to federalize all of America's elections. They are pushing it because they think it will help them stay in power. Historically, States have had oversight of their own elections. While there is always room for improvement, let's keep the Federal Government out of it and leave the States to handle their own elections, as has been done in the past. I oppose the rule and the underlying bill, 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. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 20 seconds.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack)

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Garbarino.)

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, while the majority is playing their political games in Washington, a real crisis situation at our southern border remains. Illegal immigration is at a record high, and there are real human costs associated with that. Between the dangerous journey to get to our border and the dangerous people coming across and continuing to commit crimes, people are dying in huge numbers because of this crisis. It is no secret that fentanyl is coming across the southern border. This year, Border Patrol has seized twice as much of this deadly drug as last year, and more than 100,000 Americans have died from overdoses. Because we essentially have an open border, there is no way to effectively keep criminals from crossing into our country. Immigrants need to know there is a process for becoming an American and doing it in the wrong way will have consequences. Finishing the wall would be a huge deterrent for these bad actors. We must finish the wall to slow the massive numbers of illegal immigrants we are seeing before we can have a serious conversation about immigration reform. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tony Gonzales).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for the additional consideration of H.R. 2729, the Finish the Wall Act, authored by Representative Higgins. Mr. Speaker, 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.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Maryland and from the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again, the select committee is acting to fulfill a predetermined narrative. It seems increasingly clear that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to prolong this political process to distract Americans from the very real issues concerning this country. We have record-high inflation, a flood of immigrants at our southern border, a workforce and supply chain crisis, and instead of working toward real ways we can combat these crises, or, in fact, even admitting that these crises exist, we are back here, arguing if we should continue down a path of yet another partisan investigation of questionable motive and purpose. That said, there are several questions that need to be resolved before we can continue with this vote. The courts have found that the power rests with Congress over subpoenas to private individuals if they serve a legitimate legislative purpose. A legitimate legislative purpose would be issuing subpoenas to the leaders of the D.C. National Guard and the Sergeant at Arms so that we can find out what gaps in communications and authorities need to be filled and find solutions to ensure this doesn't happen again. But have those been issued? Unfortunately not. Instead, House Democrats are continuing their witch hunt into President Trump and their political opponents who voted against the certification of the election, something that they themselves did just 4 years before. What information is intended to be gathered that would be useful for a legitimate legislative purpose? It seems the majority keeps moving the goalposts for what qualifies them to hold someone in contempt. This recipient has been cooperative, providing almost 9,000 pages of emails and other documents. But when the majority couldn't find what they wanted, the committee subpoenaed Verizon, looking for other information from his personal phone, invading his privacy. There is no valid legislative purpose for this subpoena. Where does it stop? When will they be satisfied with the information they receive? They cannot continue punishing people just because they aren't getting the answers that they want. Furthermore, criminal contempt is not subpoena enforcement. This decision will still not achieve the stated intent of obtaining the records. The committee should seek a civil judgment and legally obligate a person to comply with the subpoena. Instead, my colleagues are going forward with this political ploy. Holding someone in criminal contempt is purely punitive. It leads me to wonder what the real mission of this committee is. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats made it clear early on that this committee and its investigation were predestined to be a sham when it tilted representation in favor of Democrats, rejecting two Republican Members selected to serve on the commission by the minority leader. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the precedent being set today because the majority is blinded by their own political agenda. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this select committee is clearly operating outside the realm of its intended purpose. They do not like the information they are receiving, and they know they aren't getting anywhere. So, instead, they criminally punish those who they politically disagree with. There isn't adequate minority representation, and because of that, the majority has been able to turn the committee into a vehicle to push their own narrative. It is clearly more interested in pursuing a partisan agenda to politicize the January 6 attack rather than conducting a legitimate, good-faith investigation into security failures leading up to that day. Again, this is nothing more than an attempt by the Democrats to distract from the very real issues facing Americans every day. I look forward to getting back to the real work of solving the supply chain crisis, reclaiming American energy production, and empowering U.S. citizens to live their lives without government interference. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).

Mrs. FISCHBACH

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Retired Specialist Lucas Schmitz who sustained severe injuries while heroically serving the United States as part of the Minnesota Army National Guard. Specialist Schmitz has spent his life serving others. In 2005, Schmitz was deployed to Iraq with the Minnesota Army National Guard as an Infantryman with the Second Combined Arms Battalion of the 34th Infantry Division. On July 25, 2006, the vehicle that Specialist Schmitz's was riding in hit an IED, forcing them to vacate it. While running to the next vehicle, Specialist Schmitz was injured by stepping on a second IED and tragically lost his right leg. Upon his medical discharge from the Minnesota Army National Guard, Schmitz moved back to his hometown of Perham, Minnesota where he now lives with his wife, Tina, and three children. He has continued with his commitment to helping others by teaching special education at Perham Public Schools. Surrounded by the support of his family and community, Schmitz will receive a new home from the organization Homes For Our Troops that is specifically designed to accommodate the needs resulting from his injuries. I am eternally grateful for Specialist Schmitz's dedication to our Nation, and the sacrifices the men and women in the military make every day as they risk their lives to keep us safe. On behalf of Minnesota and the United States House of Representatives, I thank him for his service.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank the Representative from Texas for yielding to me. Madam Speaker, this bill has gone through several versions just this week--possibly just today--too many for even the bill's sponsors to keep up with. During one of the several Rules Committee hearings, committee chairs could not even explain specific provisions of the bill. How does the majority think the American public can really know what is in this bill? The majority will stick very closely to the talking points, using words like ``transformational,'' ``bold vision,'' and ``values-based leadership,'' and they will say things about affordable housing, universal pre-K, and drug pricing. But do we know where all that money is really going? Our constituents deserve to understand each of these programs but also the ones that they don't include in their talking points. They have eliminated the bipartisan Hyde amendment protections that for 40 years have been preventing tax dollars from being used to pay for abortion. It is being reported that there is approximately $756 billion in a welfare spending increase. How is that money being used? Where is it going? The bill also includes at least a few budget gimmicks. The bill offers partial funding for some programs, creating temporary programs that are clearly meant to be permanent. This means the cost estimates for the bills are not accurate into the future. The committee chairs even have a hard time explaining how those budget gimmicks work. One of the biggest ticket items is the $320 billion in tax subsidies for electric vehicles, solar energy, wind, and other green energy, and an additional $25 million for the President to establish an environmental initiative. The American public might want to know that almost $45 billion is going to the IRS for increased enforcement and digital monitoring, especially since the Democrats have proposed spying on Americans' bank accounts. This bill pours billions of dollars into government agencies to further insert government bureaucrats into the daily lives of American citizens.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to ignore the feeling that this is one more example of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying to distract from the real issues that concern Americans. We have an administration that can't stop the flood of illegal immigrants at our southern border, can't unlock the supply bottlenecks at our ports. What are the Democrats doing about inflation? What are the Democrats doing about the border issues? What are the Democrats doing about supply chain issues? And what are the Democrats doing about the worker shortage? And I could go on. Instead, we are here going back and forth arguing if we should continue down a path of yet another partisan investigation of questionable motives and purpose. No wonder the public thinks we can't do our job. That said, there are several questions that need to be resolved before we can continue with this vote. The Supreme Court has found that the power rests with Congress for subpoenas if they serve a legitimate legislative purpose, and be ``related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress.'' A legitimate legislative purpose would be issuing subpoenas to the leaders of the D.C. National Guard and Sergeant at Arms so that we can find out what gaps in communications and authorities that need to be filled and find solutions to ensure that this doesn't happen again. But have those been issued? No. Instead, House Democrats are continuing their witch hunt into President Trump and their political opponents that voted against the certification of the election in some States, something that they, themselves, did just 4 years ago. What information is intended to be gathered that would be useful for a legitimate legislative purpose? Much of the discussion in the Rules Committee centered around criminal action, not around legislation. These concerns would have been raised by Republicans if Speaker Pelosi had not rejected the minority leader's nominees. But instead, she hand- picked Members that would fit her and the Democrats' narrative. It seems the story line has already been decided. We need to ensure that it is, as stated, intended to investigate and report upon the facts, circumstances, and causes relating to January 6. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats made it clear early on that this committee and its investigation outcome was predetermined when it tilted representation in favor of Democrats and, again, rejected the two Republican Members selected to serve on the Commission by the minority leader. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the precedent being set here today as the majority, yet again, embarks on another investigation in search of a crime. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for the additional consideration of H.R. 5586, the Prohibiting IRS Financial Surveillance Act, authored by Representative Ferguson. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, requiring banks and Federal credit unions to disclose personal details about their customers' accounts is an extreme invasion of privacy, and it would have terrible implications for community banks and credit unions in my district and across the country. I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised about this egregious attempt on behalf of the Democrats. They clearly want as much government involvement as possible in every possible part of American citizens' lives. I may not be surprised anymore, but I continue to be disappointed that they refuse to listen to the American citizens who time and time again say they want Big Government out of their lives and their wallets. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Ferguson).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).