Michelle Fischbach

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment that I do talk to farmers, and what farmers are talking to me about is the incredible costs of their inputs this year. That is what they are talking about. They are not coming to me about climate change. They are coming to me about the cost it is for them to do business and the inflation they are facing. Last year, my Democrat colleagues sling-shotted us into record inflation with trillions in reckless spending. Now, they have the audacity to use that very crisis to justify doing it again. They call this bill the Inflation Reduction Act. In reality, this is just another installation of their tax-and-spend agenda that got us here in the first place. This time, they are spending $80 billion in funding to send 87,000 new IRS agents to shake loose change from Americans to pay for their spending spree. With this new staff, the IRS will be bigger than the Pentagon, State Department, FBI, and Border Patrol. This new IRS army will increase audits on individuals by more than 1.2 million, nearly half of which will be on Americans making $75,000 per year or less. You don't have to take my word for it. This is according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. What do Americans get in return? $3 billion in grants to promote climate justice; $7.5 billion for wealthy families to purchase their next Tesla; $1.3 billion for those same families to boost the sale value of their old Tesla; and $1 billion for electric garbage trucks. This bill is riddled with provisions that carry the Green New Deal stamp of approval. This bill is not designed to help the country recover. It is not going to help American families pay for groceries. It is not designed to help American families. It is designed to send an army of IRS agents after low- and middle-income Americans so Democrats can pay for their Green New Deal.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Committee on Rules for providing the time to speak. Madam Speaker, my colleagues are proving, yet again, that they want to strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights. The latest so-called assault weapons ban is unconstitutional and will impact other aspects of American life. This bill would end the sale of some of the most popular rifles sold in America today, impacting the sporting industry and all of those who rely on it for their livelihoods. This bill will have an impact in ways even the supporters of the bill do not understand. For example, under this law, stabilizing braces for pistols would be outlawed. Despite what some of my colleagues have said, stabilizing braces are not bump stocks and will not turn a pistol into an assault rifle. Stabilizing braces are used by hunters with disabilities, including many of our disabled veterans, to help them safely hunt with pistols. Not only is this bill an assault on our constitutional rights, but the loss of the revenue from the sales of these firearms will also have a devastating impact on the Federal Aid to Wildlife Restoration Fund, which helps States pay for environmental conservation efforts. The bill provides no alternative for how to make up for the severe decrease in conservation funding. Democrats are no longer disguising their radical agenda to ban guns and do away with the Constitution's Second Amendment. My colleagues from the other side have said that they will do everything they can to ban guns in this country, even to the point of packing the Supreme Court to make it happen. Anyone who thinks this bill is not a step in that direction is kidding themselves. This is yet another attempt from the left to strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights, and I oppose this bill and the rule.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have to just mention again, because I am confused, and I want it stated very clearly what I have said repeatedly. There are many Republicans who will be supporting the telehealth bill. Mr. Speaker, there are many Republicans that will be supporting the telehealth bill. That is not where I am concerned that we are not addressing constituents' issues with. Where I am concerned about our constituents is the price of gas and the inflation that they are facing, and that we need to be addressing those issues; and that is why we offered the PQ that we did. And that is why we have offered repeated solutions to the cost of gas and the inflation facing our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Representative from California and my colleague on the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, we are here to discuss the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4040, the Advancing Telehealth Beyond COVID-19 Act, and H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety Act. First, H.R. 4040 will extend several Medicare telehealth flexibilities that were initially utilized during the pandemic. Telehealth has allowed many Americans to receive needed healthcare across the Nation. While my Republican colleagues and I appreciate the extension of these important programs, we believe that permanently authorizing them is the better option. Once again, the Democrats have decided to skip the committee process and refuse Republican input or look at any possible improvements to the bill. I know that many Members will be supporting this bill, but I still must mention this missed opportunity to strengthen healthcare and telehealth, especially for rural Minnesota and rural America. Second, H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety Act, would make it illegal for any person to trade, breed, or possess any prohibited wildlife species, specifically exotic big cat species like lions, tigers, snow leopards, et cetera. The bill would impose civil and criminal penalties for violators and grant the Federal Government the authority to order forfeiture of big cats held in private captivity. Many of the provisions of this legislation already exist under the USDA regulatory scheme. More than anything, Mr. Speaker, I am wholeheartedly disappointed in how my colleagues are managing the remaining time left in this Congress. The absence of any sense of urgency to fix the real problems facing this country is incredibly frustrating. This country is at the doorstep of a recession, but instead of addressing it, the U.S. House of Representatives is spending time on the regulation of big cats. My constituents are calling my office because their families are struggling to pay for basic needs like food and gas. They are calling because they want us to secure national borders and address the fentanyl epidemic. They are calling because they want to know what Congress is doing about rampant crime in cities across the country. These are the issues facing our constituents. These are the issues they are calling about because they are the issues affecting their everyday lives and the ones we should be focusing on. It is because of the irresponsible policies by Democrats that we have such a big hole to dig ourselves out of, and now they want to ignore these problems altogether and take up our precious time left in Congress to consider legislation built off reality TV. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule, I ask Members to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I do continue to be disappointed in my colleagues. It is possible that they are really this out of touch. The typical family is now spending almost $500 per month. Across the country, people are making changes like skipping meals, changing driving patterns, and even delaying retirement to adjust their lives to cope with the accelerating inflation; inflation caused by out-of- control government spending and regulation. Cities across the country are experiencing record crime waves. We have a serious immigration crisis leading to the deaths of countless people at our southern border and in our hometowns because of the fentanyl drug crisis crossing along with them. I know that, like mine, your offices are getting daily calls about all of these. Why are we spending time on anything that does not work directly to solve those devastating problems in our country? Maybe it is because Democrats want to distract us from the fact that their policies got us here, rather than fix them. We could be discussing genuine efforts to stop crime or increase domestic energy production or alleviate pressure points to the supply chain. But, for the sake of the Green New Deal and rampant government spending, Americans are going to have to suffer through inaction on real issues facing Americans by this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I ask Members to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention that finding middle ground actually starts with allowing the minority input into bills, whether that be in committee or offering amendments on the floor. But that is where finding middle ground and that is where finding bipartisan solutions starts. I would also like to remind my colleague from the Rules Committee that this PQ would not stop consideration of the bills in the rule. It would simply allow consideration of the amendment that was proposed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just have to say that the calls for working together ring hollow to me because working together should be happening in markup. Working together should be happening in committee meetings. But the Democrats have repeatedly and consistently chosen to skip the committee process and bring things directly to the Rules Committee and directly to the floor. And so when they call for working together, I think that that starts at the committee process. And as for bringing solutions to the floor, the Westerman-McMorris Rodgers bill that would address the energy costs has been brought repeatedly as a PQ to the floor. The Democrats had the opportunity to take a look at that and to vote on it. With a more exact answer, I yield 1 minute to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague from the Rules Committee that, as I mentioned before, many of the Republicans plan on supporting the telehealth bill, although I think we missed the opportunity to have Republican input and have an improved bill. But we are able to do more than one thing. My colleague mentioned that this is very partisan. Gas and oil prices are a serious, serious issue for our constituents. As I mentioned before, it is about their getting to work, it is about their getting to school, and it is about their getting to church. They need us to address the cost of oil and gas. The Democrats have really just simply tried to distract from this issue and tried to distract us with all kinds of other things and not really talk about the issues facing our constituents. And like I said earlier, we certainly do have Republican support for the telehealth bill. As a matter of fact, I believe that there are Republican sponsors of that bill. But I think that what is happening now is the Democrats are truly trying to distract from the issues that are really facing our constituents. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or SPR, is an important national security tool and safety net for this country. The United States has already been improperly depleting the Strategic Petroleum Reserve under this administration since it is refusing to increase domestic production during an energy crisis. We most certainly should not be selling our emergency supply to an adversary like China. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan) to speak further on the amendment.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 8488, a bill to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from sending petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to China. 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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, a great defender of life, for yielding me this time, and I stand for life today. Madam Speaker, H.R. 8296, the so-called Women's Health Protection Act, is proof that the left wants to ensure limitless, taxpayer-funded abortion. This is truly outrageous, and the vast majority of Americans do not support abortion without limits. It is stunning that Congress is wasting its time on legislation that is so out of touch with the people it represents. What we should be focusing on is helping women and protecting the innocent lives of babies. For that reason, I rise today to offer a motion to recommit to instead consider H.R. 619, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. Across the country, abortion providers are denying care to infants born alive after attempted abortions. We are talking about children who have already been born. We are talking about infanticide. Congress must act to protect innocent, defenseless babies who cannot protect themselves. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is compassionate legislation that does just that. This bill simply ensures that babies who survive attempted abortions receive the same standard of care that any newborn should receive. It would require healthcare providers to exercise skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of these children and then immediately transport and admit them to the hospital. It would impose penalties on providers who purposefully fail to give medical care to these babies. It would bar criminal prosecution of the mother. But most importantly, it would save lives. Coming to Congress, I knew there would be a lot of difficult conversations about the life of the unborn, but I am truly shocked and heartbroken that I have to stand here and defend lifesaving care for babies who have already been born. Madam Speaker, we can, and we should make every effort to protect the lives of newborn babies. To my colleagues, this is the simplest vote you will ever have to take. Either you support babies being denied lifesaving healthcare after they are born, or you do not. 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, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I wanted to point out to the gentleman from the Massachusetts that the majority solely holds the power to give the bill a hearing. And I am sure I can speak on behalf of the gentleman from North Carolina that he would be happy to be granted a hearing on his bill and would love to have that done given that you are in control of those hearings. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the Representative from Massachusetts and the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Madam Speaker, S. 2938, as amended in the Senate, is at its core an effort to chip away at the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. It has received no hearings, no committee process, and has only recently been released in bill form for the public to review. It came to us very early this morning after the Senate passed it late last night, and my colleagues expect us to vote on this bill later today, despite the egregious procedural violations. Unfortunately for the American people, that is not a unique development here in Congress. I am disappointed that this is the way the majority has chosen to proceed with legislation, with no hearing and no public input. The bill provides $750 million over 5 years in Federal Byrne JAG grant funding to States for crisis intervention proceedings, including State-level red flag programs. However, this bill fails to provide explicit due process requirements. We have seen in places where red flag laws have been adopted that these types of laws always infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. This ambiguous language contains insufficient guardrails to ensure that the money is actually going toward keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or preventing mass violence. Vague red flag laws are ripe for abuse and can become extremely dangerous. For example, a person could have just gotten out of an abusive relationship and has a firearm to defend themselves against their ex-partner. Their abusive partner could report this individual and have their firearm taken away, putting the victim at even greater risk. This bill also includes provisions that will lead to enhanced scrutiny of certain adults based on their age before they can exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights. There are no other constitutional rights in which we require enhanced screenings of certain adults based solely on their age. There is also surprisingly little in this bill that actually focuses on making our schools safer. The bill does nothing to help provide for additional school resource officers. I suspect this is due to the fact that some of my Democrat colleagues are still incapable of supporting funding for additional law enforcement officers, even in our children's schools. Lastly, we know that this is just the tip of the iceberg. President Biden and my Democrat colleagues have made it abundantly clear that this is just a ``small step'' toward their larger gun-grabbing agenda. The actions of this administration's Department of Justice, FBI, and ATF have completely whittled away the confidence of gun-owning Americans that the provisions in these bills will not be abused beyond their stated scope. House Republicans are committed to identifying and solving the root causes of violent crimes and bolstering school security, but doing so must not infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. For example, just earlier this week, we voted on the bipartisan Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act. This bill contains the bulk of the mental health care provisions included in the Senate bill, without infringing on Second Amendment rights. In this case, the bill we are considering under this rule is not only a blatant infringement on lawful gun owners' Second Amendment rights, but an unnecessary duplication of the bipartisan work we have already done. Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I oppose the rule, ask Members to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, House Republicans are committed to addressing the tragedy of these school shootings, but we cannot and should not impede the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. This is not a matter of Democrat or Republican; it is a matter of what is in the Constitution. Congressman Hudson's legislation is something we can pass right now, today, that will have immediate positive effects, keeping students safe while getting Americans the mental health resources they need. Many of these solutions are included in the bill we are considering under the rule, but Congressman Hudson's solution achieves the same outcome without infringing on our Second Amendment rights. Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hudson), to speak further on the amendment.

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to mention that my distinguished colleague repeatedly talks about how this is not controversial. If it is not controversial, then committee hearings held by the majority should not be a problem. So I would ask again that we follow the procedures of the House. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider Congressman Hudson's STOP II Act, critical legislation that addresses two issues that both sides of the aisle should be able to agree on, hardening for schools and active-shooter training, law enforcement, and mental health funding. I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, we join the chairman in wishing Rose the best in her future endeavors. Thank you for that. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, House Republicans want to ensure that our schools and communities are safe, but today the lack of hearings, the lack of public input, and the lack of procedure offends our duty to our constituents and our oath to defend the Constitution. We are not willing to subvert constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans, like this bill would do. There are solutions to prevent tragedies like we have seen without affecting law-abiding gun owners. We can pass those today, and that, both sides can agree on. Unfortunately, the legislation provided under the rule attaches these solutions to unconstitutional and misguided policies that are a ``small step'' in the Democrats' broader gun control agenda. Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I ask Members to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that I am going to specifically talk about H.R. 7606. Many of the bills included in that bill, in H.R. 7606, I supported and helped introduce. The Butcher Block Act, year-round E-15, and the PRECISE Act are all pieces of legislation I have long supported and are included in this package. I find it stunning that my colleagues in the majority after many months of sitting on these thoughtful, bipartisan bills are finally bringing them forward attached to a poison pill that is duplicative and unnecessary. Perhaps most disappointing is that this bill is being advertised as an immediate solution to skyrocketing food and fuel prices. But many of these bills are simply codifications of existing programs or duplicative of other efforts all packaged with a feel-good title. Let me be clear. These will not address the underlying drivers of inflation or increasing input costs. If the majority were serious about bringing down the cost of our food and fuel, they would check their incessant spending habits far beyond the Federal Government's means. They would roll back the Biden administration's regulatory war on agriculture. But that is not what this bill does. Madam Speaker, the Packers and Stockyards Division already has enforcement tools at their disposal to address uncompetitive behavior in the meatpacking sector. However, by the Packers and Stockyards Division's own estimates, the agency is chronically understaffed and underfunded. If my colleagues were serious about combating uncompetitive behavior in the meatpacking industry, they would have included robust resources to enhance enforcement under the Packers and Stockyard Act. This legislation is unfunded and creates an unnecessary and duplicative special investigator appointed by an administration that blames rising costs of goods and services on everyone but themselves and is empowered with nearly unlimited authority to harass market participants when convenient for the politics of this administration. Further, the Department of Justice has already been in the process of investigating meatpackers with respect to this exact issue. I would ask my colleague if they have yet to receive any update regarding this effort? And if so, what can we expect from it? I know many of my Republican colleagues and I have been seeking an update for months to no avail. Absent such investigation, it is inappropriate for this bill to move forward. Much of this package does have bipartisan support, but when I asked why the majority didn't focus on the bills with strong bipartisan consensus, I was essentially told that this is the package, this is what the majority wants. The message to me was, Take it or leave it. This shows, once again, the majority's unwillingness to work in a bipartisan manner and really, really address the issues facing Americans. That is unfortunate, and I urge my colleagues in the majority to work with Republicans in addressing these issues in a thoughtful and bipartisan manner and to stop playing politics while our country suffers. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

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