Michelle Fischbach

Mrs. FISCHBACH

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

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

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

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, the Israelis are among our greatest allies and a critical strategic partner in the international fight against terrorism. Congressman Mast understands this better than most. H.R. 261 sanctions foreign governments and persons who provide support for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), who represents the 18th Congressional District.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, if the issue that the majority has with reopening is related to vaccinations, I understand the majority claims that their side is 100 percent vaccinated. I would just say that if that is the case, science says they have nothing to worry about coming to the House floor or being in public. But that is not what this is all about. This is about the Speaker holding on to her slim and tenuous majority by any means necessary, even weaponizing the House rules to do so. If we do defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of Representative Mast's H.R. 261, the Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act of 2021. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous materials, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me on this important Special Order on National Police Week. Mr. Speaker, it is National Police Week, and I rise today to join my colleagues in support of the men and women of law enforcement. We ask law enforcement to do an impossible job, and they do it with professionalism, compassion, and grace. Their days are spent putting themselves in harm's way to keep us safe, and they are always on call. For that alone, they deserve our gratitude. But the men and women of law enforcement do so much more, and I want them to know that there are many of us who are not afraid to stand up and say that we support you. We see the sacrifices you make and the good that you do. We see the time that you spend away from your family and the emotional toll the job takes on you. I think of my many friends and family who are police officers and the hard work that they do. They will always have a special place in my heart. Even as the profession faces unprecedented scrutiny, the men and women of law enforcement still do their jobs with pride because, for them, it is about more than just a paycheck. It is about serving their neighbors. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting, not defunding, law enforcement. Let's take care of those who take care of us. Together, let's work on making our communities better. To the men and women of law enforcement in Minnesota and around the country, thank you.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from North Carolina for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Eliminate Barriers to Innovation Act. As the ranking member of the Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit Subcommittee, I am looking forward to digging in on the many issues surrounding digital assets, particularly digital commodities. Digitally native assets represent a new way for people to interact with each other and potentially organize productive activities. Whatever promise this innovative technology may hold, it will not be realized if it is subjected to outdated and unworkable regulations. One of the great strengths our financial system in the U.S. has is that the rules are well-formed, longstanding, and fit for purpose. While we may argue about the details, the basic principles of the U.S. financial markets, and the rules which apply to legacy assets, are well understood. Digital assets, on the other hand, present new challenges. While the principles won't change, the rules that bring those principles into effect may have to change. This working group will give the CFTC, the SEC, and the market participants a critical venue to examine those principles and bring needed clarity to the application of existing rules on digital asset transactions. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, my amendment would retain the ability of H-2A workers to obtain redress, but would provide important protection for growers, too. Madam Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on the Judiciary to consider my amendment to H.R. 1603 to provide a commonsense right to cure for our Nation's farmers, who will be subject to burdensome litigation under this underlying bill. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, H.R. 1603 subjects H-2A employers to a private right of action in Federal court for the first time ever in the history of the H-2A program. The bill does so by applying the right of action standard in the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, or MSPA, to H-2A employers. My motion to recommit today simply provides that when an H-2A employer faces an H-2A-related claim under the MSPA, the employer is provided a right to cure before the claim can proceed. Specifically, the amendment allows the employer to attempt to resolve the alleged violation within 5 days of receiving the complaint. The employer must also file with the court documentation demonstrating that the action giving rise to the complaint has been remedied. After that, the court may dismiss the complaint if it is satisfied that the complaint has been resolved. Under H.R. 1603, private right of action can include actual damages or statutory damages of up to $500 per plaintiff per violation, where violations constitute separate provisions. Most claims involve multiple plaintiffs and, in class action, could involve many plaintiffs who didn't even want to be part of the claim. For class action, the court is authorized to award the lesser of up to $500 per plaintiff per violation or up to $500,000. In other words, liability under MSPA could be half a million dollars. Especially in the case of a fabricated claim or an unintended violation, this could be financially devastating for farmers. Costs like these to agricultural employers on top of attorneys' fees, court fees, and awards pursuant to other claim avenues should be taken seriously. They can be significant burdens on employers who did not knowingly or purposefully violate H-2A requirements. At the very least, we should allow our growers the opportunity to remedy a potential violation before they are hit with a huge penalty. Today's motion to recommit would do just that. If the purpose of filing a complaint is to seek redress, then this amendment provides a reasonable path forward. I am sure that those whose purpose it is to subject employers to additional claims, frivolous or otherwise, will oppose my amendment, but those who understand the importance of helping U.S. farmers in the face of constant and growing competition from foreign agricultural operations without our high labor standards understand how reasonable a right to cure is.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

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

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

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The Violence Against Women Act was first signed into law almost 30 years ago with wide bipartisan support. The law recognizes that Federal laws covering domestic violence could help ease overburdened State and local criminal justice systems. It was narrowly defined and not controversial. Since its passage, it has been reauthorized on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, in recent years, Democrats have politicized the law, straying further and further away from its original intent. This bill, H.R. 1620, is a continuation of the Democrats' politicization, expanding and altering the fundamental nature of the Violence Against Women Act. The most significant change in this reauthorization effort is that it erases important distinctions between women and men. It replaces violence against ``women'' with ``a person of any gender,'' extending the law's protections well-past the narrowly defined and necessary protection for women. This rewriting of the Violence Against Women Act not only undermines the original intent of this legislation, but also jeopardizes the safety and well-being of women at risk. It does more to advance the Democrats' progressive agenda than it does to protect women. It is not just VAWA. The Democrats' entire radical agenda hurts women. Calls to defund, dismantle, and rethink local law enforcement hurt at-risk women. Never-ending government lockdowns that require battered and abused women to stay in violent households hurt women. A southern border open to dangerous drug cartels and human traffickers caused by President Biden's border crisis hurts women. In fact, the Democrats' open border policies incentivize women to make the dangerous trip to the U.S.-Mexico border on which one-third of women report being sexually abused. Those are not the only problems with this legislation. H.R. 1620 also threatens Americans' constitutional right to religious freedom. The bill denies faith-based exemptions for VAWA grant recipients, prohibiting religious organizations from running shelters and legal aid centers on the basis of their sincerely held religious beliefs. The Democrats' culture war could actually force faith-based centers for abused women to close. H.R. 1620 also expands the definition of domestic violence to include economic and emotional duress, pulling funding away from combating the severity of violent crimes. This legislation disregards the well-being of women by promoting lofty concepts, such as restorative justice approaches to crimes against women, which are unproven and could force a woman to confront her abuser. Democrats know that these are unnecessary additions that jeopardize the bipartisan reauthorization, so why are they choosing to proceed? Why are they putting forward this bill--with no hearings, no markups in this Congress--at the expense of women's safety and well-being? Any crime or abuse against any single individual is abhorrent. State and Federal laws already protect individuals, women and men, from domestic violence and sexual abuse and any related reprehensible acts like dating violence and stalking. Resources should be targeted to help those women and individuals cope and recover and also prevent further violence and abuse. This bill falls short of that goal and wildly distorts the original purpose of this law. Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

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