Michelle Fischbach

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma.

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my good friend.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. Mr. Speaker, the majority has chosen to turn the committee into a vehicle to push their own narrative, and it is clearly more interested in pursuing a partisan agenda to politicize January 6 rather than conducting a legitimate, good-faith investigation into the security failures leading up to that day. As my colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out, where is the legitimate legislative purpose? The Members across the aisle have yet to address what kind of legitimate legislative purposes could, might, or even possibly come out of the commission investigation. A lawful subpoena, according to the Supreme Court, needs to serve a legitimate legislative purpose. The majority leader used words like ``oversight,'' ``the American people need to understand,'' and ``hold perpetrators accountable.'' These statements do not qualify as a legitimate legislative purpose. 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 issues, reclaiming American energy production, and empowering U.S. citizens to live their lives without government interference or surveillance. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the previous question, 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, with all respect to my colleague from Massachusetts, the fact still remains that when the minority leader did try to participate in this Commission, the Speaker rejected the two nominees that the minority leader had offered. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler).

Mrs. FISCHBACH

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague on the Rules Committee that I stated very clearly that I was talking about House Republicans. But I do want to point out that no Republican in the Senate voted for this debt limit extension in addition to that, and I appreciate the majority leader's words. He gave us a history lesson about the debt limit and the votes and about not playing politics, but I just want to, before we move on, remind everyone about a quote from then-Senator and now President Biden. It was from 2004, during President Bush's Presidency and then-Senator Biden said: ``My symbolic vote against raising the debt limit would have been a protest of the policies that brought us to this point, and I demand that we change course.'' So this has not always been as bipartisan as the majority leader made it appear. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good). Parliamentary Inquiry

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, as we hear so much about this wonderful bipartisan history of this debt ceiling, I just want to point out that the last five times Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and the White House, the current Speaker and the entire current Democratic leadership only voted to raise the debt limit one time. So I wish that we would make sure that we point out the accurate history of how this has happened. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear from my colleagues across the aisle this notion that debt limit votes are always bipartisan. I just want to point out again, however, that in the last 20 years there were five occasions where the party in power had to pass the debt limit through the Senate by themselves. This includes when then-Senator Biden and Senator Schumer voted against raising the debt ceiling under President George W. Bush. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I point out that my colleague from the Committee on Rules points out that we did debate this bill, S. 1301, a couple of weeks ago. But he also pointed out that there is a Senate amendment that was added to it that we are not debating right now. So it is not entirely the same bill that we talked about 2 weeks ago. I wanted to make sure that was pointed out because it is not the same bill. Mr. Speaker, obviously, there is lots of discussion and input that people want to have on this debt ceiling issue, and I really do feel the need to say it again: this is an irresponsible way to run Congress. And the Democrats are not giving this debt limit extension the proper debate. What we are actually debating right now is the rule. We are not debating the actual issue of the debt ceiling and talking about it in depth, as we should be. I wanted to make sure that the American people understood that that is what we are doing. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 716 provides for the consideration of four bills, including an irresponsible extension of the Federal debt limit and two bills that would have questionable consequences for small businesses. I am most concerned about S. 1301, which serves as the vehicle for an extension of the Federal debt limit until December 3. This accomplishes nothing more than kicking the can down the road on something that should be addressed now. Given the majority's insistence on passing several multi-trillion- dollar spending packages--Democrats are now in control of the House, Senate, and White House--they can pass a debt limit extension using their majority since it is their policies that are requiring substantially larger and earlier increases to the debt limit. In the past, when Congress was required to raise the debt ceiling, the two parties were able to negotiate a bipartisan path forward. Democrats simply refuse to work with House Republicans, despite having many opportunities to do so. Instead, they are determined to ram a $3.5 trillion spending bill checking off every item on their socialist wish list. I am equally incensed that Democrats won't even give the debt limit extension a proper debate or vote on the House floor. Instead, this rule will deem the debt limit extension passed. This is an insult to the Members of this body who are being denied the opportunity to fully consider the gravity of extending the debt limit to account for increasing unnecessary spending. It is absolutely unacceptable to run Congress in this fashion. The second bill up for consideration under this rule is H.R. 3110, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act. Nursing mothers deserve protections in the workplace, which is why we already have strong laws in place to ensure reasonable break time and access to private, non-bathroom locations. This bill imposes a one- size-fits-all requirement for employers and includes penalties for employer violations. Mr. Speaker, our small businesses have suffered through enough new burdensome regulations as they fought to survive over the last year. There is no need to duplicate existing law. The third bill included in this rule is H.R. 3992, the Protect Older Job Applicants Act, which expands the definition in the existing Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 to include applicants for employment as a protected class. To be clear, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act already prohibits age discrimination in hiring, making this legislation redundant and unnecessary. Under the scope of this new proposed legislation, employers using common recruiting practices like internships and job fairs could be accused of discriminating against older workers, as older workers are less likely to participate in these opportunities than young Americans entering the workforce for the first time. This bill is just a murky expansion of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The only impact this legislation will have is on the number of lawsuits brought against American businesses. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the fourth bill up for consideration under this rule is H.R. 2119, the Family Violence Prevention and Services Improvement Act of 2021. The Family Violence Prevention and Services program does critical work to support victims of family violence, and many of my colleagues and I support reauthorizing this program in its current form. Unfortunately, this is another example of the majority working alone to draft legislation rather than working in a bipartisan fashion to put together a bill we can all support. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned about a provision in this bill that could allow funds from this program, funds that should be going to support victims of violence, to be used for abortion services now that the Hyde amendment was stripped out of the annual appropriations bill. This is obviously troubling, and we cannot allow a pathway for taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. Mr. Speaker, there is much to be concerned about in these four bills; most troubling of which is the temporary increase to the Federal debt limit, which is happening for no other reason than the Democrats' own mistakes. They have worked alone on everything else. They have chosen not to be bipartisan to resolve the issues facing our country. Instead, they have chosen to push through partisan proposals while kicking critical issues down the road. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bills. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that, yet again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to operate without input from the minority. Voting for increasing the debt ceiling without proper consideration in the House is simply irresponsible. These bills include troubling consequences for small businesses. Given that the Democrats are unwilling to accept Republican input on anything else they are working to pass, including but not limited to stripping the Hyde amendment from all legislation possible, something that is in moral opposition to millions of Americans, I see no reason this should be any different. Again, Democrats can pass this extension using their majority. Mr. Speaker, we could have done so much good while addressing these topics. I am deeply disappointed that the majority chooses to pursue these bills without including House Republicans in negotiations. I ask that, in the future, they give us all the opportunity to come together for the good of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule; I oppose the underlying bills; 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 send my congratulations to the Republic of China on the upcoming October 10th celebration of Taiwan's National Day. Taiwan's democratic model of government serves as a role model to other nations. The people of Taiwan's dedication to elections that are open, free, and fair shows their commitment to freedom. The United States and Taiwan share a strong bond over our mutual commitment to the personal freedom for our citizens and for the citizens of the world. The United States and Taiwan have shared a trade partnership with each other that brings benefit to both nations. I am proud that in 2018. Taiwan made a deal with the United States to buy $1.5 billion in soybeans from my State of Minnesota and neighboring Iowa. This powerful relationship helps to promote the prosperity of businesses and citizens both in Taiwan and the United States. Once again, I wish to express my congratulations on this 110th anniversary of Taiwan's National Day.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington for yielding me the time. We hear a lot of talk coming from the other side about this Texas law, but I want to talk about the legislation that we have in front of us today and what effects that will have. Madam Speaker, it should be called the abortion on demand bill because it does nothing to protect women's health; rather, it supersedes States' rights and makes any protection for women and unborn children illegal. This bill will override countless protective State laws like parental notice, clinic regulations, and informed consent before an abortion. The abortion on demand act would not only strip States of their rights to protect women and babies, but it would also strip away a parent's right to be involved and informed on their child's health and well-being. What about protecting minors? Would States be allowed to ensure parental involvement or even notification? The answer is, of course, no under this legislation. In fact, it is just the contrary. The bill strips all of these protections provided by State laws. One of my highest priorities as a Member of Congress is protecting the right to life for all innocent life from conception until natural death. This bill is a shameful attempt to override States' rights and codify widespread abortion on demand in this country.