Michelle Fischbach

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, these bills are not about keeping kids and communities safe from violent criminals, they are about furthering a blanket anti- gun agenda. This is one-size-fits-all gun restriction legislation that would punish law-abiding gun owners and fail to improve public safety. My colleagues on the left know it. This was not a bipartisan effort and these bills will never make it through the Senate. With very real problems to solve, why are Democrats wasting precious time on something that will never make it into law? If Democrats were serious about addressing gun violence, they would engage in meaningful conversation about public safety instead of this agenda- driven political theater. The sad fact is that the Democrats' approach demonstrates that these bills and the issue of gun violence on the whole are nothing more than political talking points in an election year. This is designed to advance the radical Democrat base that believes no private citizen should ever be able to own a gun. They should be ashamed of themselves for putting us through this political show rather than working with Republicans on a bipartisan solution to gun violence. Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule and I ask Members to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, why are we here debating legislation we know will never become law, and when there are--completely separate from this proposal--bipartisan efforts going on in the Senate? We know this is not a genuine effort by the Democrats as they went right to extremes of what they know will divide this country, and would not work with Republicans or accept any of the reasonable amendments that were put forward in committee. This is a political ploy being put on by the Democrats for them to use as talking points, and it is at the expense of a tragedy and the heartache of so many across this country. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I just want to make a couple of comments. The gentleman from Massachusetts, with all due respect, mentioned other countries. I will just point out that other countries don't have the freedoms and don't live the way we do in our great democracy or Republic, whichever, and they don't have the constitutional rights that we have under the Second Amendment. Our citizens ask to have that Constitution respected, and I don't believe I used the word ``inconvenient'' at all. What I used are the words, ``trampling our constitutional rights,'' and that is what I think is important here, that we do not talk about the gentleman from Massachusetts mentioning these inconvenient things. I am talking about our citizens' constitutional rights under the Second Amendment. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider the Prosecutors Need to Prosecute Act, legislation authored by Representatives Malliotakis and Tiffany that ensures accountability for those charged with keeping our streets, our schools, and our communities safe. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment along with extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, while my colleagues in the majority believe that the best approach to addressing violence is to strip away American's constitutional rights, Republicans stand with parents and communities in ensuring those who commit crimes are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And those who don't, will be held accountable. Just last night, families in San Francisco ousted their district attorney for failing to keep their streets free from criminals. Americans are fed up with liberal prosecutors letting criminals run rampant for the sake of woke idealism. This legislation will ensure the Department of Justice and the American public have the data and information necessary to hold those responsible for keeping our streets safe accountable. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis) to further explain this amendment.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman.

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleague from Massachusetts continues to use his talking points and mentions the gun lobby, and I want to point out that I hear from many of my constituents who are law-abiding gun owners and who are extremely concerned and oppose this bill. As a matter of fact, I met with a group of students from my district this morning who oppose this legislation. Even students know that this bill will do nothing to stop gun violence, but they do understand it will trample Second Amendment rights. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, we already have gun laws in this country and yet those laws continue to be broken. If Democrats want to talk about common sense, how about we talk about enforcing the laws that already exist. Communities across the country are making it clear that they want people who commit crimes to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; yet, liberal prosecutors are letting criminals go free with minimal punishment. This is not woke. This is dangerous. Criminals need to be held accountable for their actions, and that is why we offered the PQ we did. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. 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. Let me be clear: House Republicans condemn the violence in Buffalo, Uvalde, Tulsa, and Philadelphia. We stand ready to work with the majority to directly address school safety, mental health, and the root causes of gun violence. Unfortunately, the bills we are considering today under the rule are nothing more than an attempt by Democrats to try to push their antigun agenda. H.R. 7910 is a grab bag full of far-left proposals that will not effectively address gun violence but will severely limit America's Second Amendment rights. There are a few provisions I would like to point out. The bill raises the legal age of gun ownership to 21. This provision is very likely unconstitutional. Even a liberal district court in California has already determined that with regard to similar restrictions. This bill broadens the definition of ``frame or receiver'' that could define multiple parts of the same gun as separate firearms. Each of these parts would need its own distinct serial number or risk becoming a classified ghost gun. This could turn millions of legal guns into contraband, and law-abiding gun owners into felons. H.R. 2377 is another reminder the Democrats fundamentally have no respect for Second Amendment rights. It shows their lack of respect for Fourth Amendment rights also. This bill destroys the presumption of innocence that is the bedrock of our justice system. It does away with the notion that an individual is innocent until proven guilty, and instead makes anyone subject to an extreme risk protection order guilty until proven innocent with what amounts to another version of a red flag law. They also want to mandate a system for gun storage in private homes, which is unconstitutional, and almost impossible to enforce without stripping even more rights from law-abiding citizens. Democrats are picking and choosing legal standards to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights based on how closely those rights are aligned with their political agenda. Furthermore, the universe of individuals who can petition a court for an extreme risk protection order under this bill is far too broad, and it creates a process that is ripe for abuse. This bill would create an opportunity for a disgruntled ex-roommate or predatory domestic partner to use the judicial system to harass and burden an individual by requiring law enforcement to seize that individual's firearms and ammunition. Federal law already prohibits dangerous and unfit individuals from purchasing or possessing firearms. An individual with a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction, an individual involuntarily committed to a mental institution or adjudicated mentally defective, or an individual who is an unlawful user of controlled substances are all prohibited from possessing or purchasing a firearm under current law. Democrats rejected an amendment that will allow for transfers of a firearm to a victim of domestic violence for self-defense. Under this bill, a friend or neighbor trying to help a victim would be charged with gun trafficking. These bills are not about public safety, they are about the left's antigun agenda. During the Judiciary Committee's consideration of this bill, the chairman of the committee conceded that the strict gun laws in liberal jurisdictions don't work because criminals are able to obtain guns elsewhere illegally. A Member from Tennessee on that committee admitted that the Democrats' bills will make it harder for law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Another Member, one from New York, threatened to abolish the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court if any of our Nation's checks and balances stood in the way of the Democrats' agenda to trample the Second Amendment. The majority will argue that these are commonsense proposals, but they fail to explain the details and the real effects of these provisions. And what are law-abiding gun owners concerned about? They are concerned about the attack on their constitutional rights provided in the Second Amendment. All of us recognize the recent tragedies, and our heart goes out to the parents, the families, and communities, but the root causes must be addressed. Simply attacking law-abiding gun owners will not solve the problem. Addressing the causes will. House Republicans stand ready to address the root causes of these senseless acts of violence, but not at the cost of America's constitutional rights. Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I ask Members to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, policing of the First Amendment protected speech has no place in this country. Yet, the Biden administration, unsatisfied with their big tech and their mainstream media allies' efforts to control criticism of their disastrous agenda, have decided to propose a government-sanctioned, taxpayer-funded ministry of truth. This not only runs contrary to the values of our Nation but is likely unconstitutional and Congress should play no part in its creation. In fact, Congress should come together to uphold the constitutional principles that the best weapon against speech we don't like is not censure; it is more speech. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko) to further speak on the amendment.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank the Representative, Mr. Raskin, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, we are here to discuss a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 903, the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act; H.R. 5129, the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022; and H.R. 2499, the Federal Firefighters Fairness Act, which would provide needed benefits to firefighters and other Federal workers suffering from occupation-related diseases and simplifies the process of providing care and benefits for these workers to ensure they will not be caught up in bureaucratic red tape. Finally, the rule provides for consideration of a supplemental appropriation to Ukraine to ensure that they have the necessary funds to counter Russian aggression. The community services block grant, or CSBG, aims to reduce poverty by improving economic security for low-income individuals and creating economic opportunities in their communities. This program has not been updated since 1998 and is in dire need of reform, but H.R. 5129 fails to accomplish that goal. It continues to let States set the benchmarks for progress and allows ineffective programs to continue receiving taxpayer dollars. It increases the income thresholds to 200 percent above the Federal poverty line, stretching Federal resources thinner and effectively robbing those most in need of help. It allows grantees to use their facilities for voter registration, completely distracting from the program's goal to fight poverty and risking the introduction of partisan activity into nonpartisan efforts. Worst of all, this bill cuts existing protections for faith-based charities. Without these protections, organizations that have fought poverty for years could be forced to remove their faithful beliefs from their work if they want to continue providing important poverty relief. Why would we want to limit the number of organizations participating in this cause? H.R. 903, the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act, has so many flaws, I don't have time to mention them all. This bill goes against Congress' intent when it enacted the Aviation and Transportation Security Act to create the Transportation Security Administration, or the TSA, in November 2001 following the 9/11 terror attacks. At the time, Congress recognized the importance of providing unique authorities to ensure that TSA could carry out its national security mission. Converting all 60,000 TSA employees into title 5 would limit that flexibility. Under ATSA, the agency may exercise one-step removal for serious offenses such as intentional security breaches, theft, failure of drug and alcohol tests while on duty, or arrests for certain criminal offenses. Under H.R. 903, an employee who knowingly allows guns or explosives through a security checkpoint may no longer be immediately fired. Furthermore, under this bill, matters of national security could be negotiable under collective bargaining negotiations. The flexibility that Congress intended for TSA would allow for the imposition of, for example, enhanced screening procedures based on credible threats. Under this bill, the implementation of new security requirements could be subject to negotiation with the union. If the national security implications are not enough, how about the fact that TSA employees could actually lose benefits under this bill? If H.R. 903 becomes law, employees could lose the ability to trade shifts with one another, donate leave to their colleagues, and receive certain incentive pay. Some overtime pay would be prohibited, and current career milestone bonuses could no longer be offered. Finally, this bill forces employees to unionize under AFGE specifically so employees wouldn't even get to choose their labor representation. This bill does not allow for an intervening union election and would require the DHS Secretary to consult with AFGE on leave benefits, additional pay, and incentives and bonuses for all TSA employees, now a 60,000-person workforce. Everyone here, I am sure, is thankful for TSA and wants their employees to be satisfied with their working conditions. But that is a question of Congress prioritizing for that purpose, not an inflexible, forced unionization to appease the majority's base. I urge my colleagues to heed the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel, a bipartisan group of former officials that strongly recommended against moving TSA personnel under title 5. Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule and ask Members to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment a little bit. There have been some complaints that our speakers on our side of the aisle here are not addressing the issues in Ukraine and the bill that has been presented to us this afternoon. But right now we are talking about the rule, and we are dealing with procedures for what will happen the rest of this week. This is a rules debate, and we will get to the substance of the issue and the debate on each of the bills that we are talking about right now. I am sure, I know that our Members will be talking about the Ukraine bill and some of the concerns and some of the positives about that bill with all of the time that is allotted for those debates later today. I am sure that there will be great discussion about each of the bills at great length. In the meantime, there is great concern regarding the Disinformation Governance Board, and I think that this body needs to discuss that. That is why we bring it up. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and the previous question, I ask Members to do the same, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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