Michelle Fischbach

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, this is not the bill for this amendment, and it certainly should go through the process and be given the consideration and discussion due true ethics reforms instead of amendments that simply target the former President and his administration. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment would prohibit the President, Vice President, and Cabinet members from contracting with the Federal Government. The amendment adds broad new language to the criminal code and could discourage people from entering Federal service. We should want and encourage the most qualified people to run for office and serve in our Federal Government. This amendment is completely outside the scope of the NDAA and nothing more than a desperate attempt to score political points. This is the kind of unrelated amendment that does not belong in the NDAA. We are now 8 months into the Biden administration, yet Democrats continue to push legislation, as mentioned by the previous speaker, that is targeted at the Trump administration. But what else can Democrats talk about? Rising inflation caused by President Biden's failed economic policies? Rising crime caused by Democrats defunding the police? The Biden border crisis? If Democrats were serious about ethics reform, they would carefully consider this as a standalone bill. Instead, they choose to slap it onto an unrelated bill with no discussion or thought. This amendment and provision should go through regular order so Members have the opportunity to debate and consider ethics reforms. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for hosting this Special Order to discuss the abortion on demand act. Mr. Speaker, this bill imposes national abortion on demand until birth, abolishing all past, present, and future State laws on this topic. Not only does this pose a grave threat to States' rights, but it will also harm countless babies and women along the way. During Rules Committee, I asked a simple question: Does anything in this bill actually have any reasonable health benefit for women? And the answer is, no, it does not. The bill the Democrats name the Women's Health Protection Act has nothing to do with women's health. This bill would wipe out countless State laws that protect women and babies, like clinic regulation and parental notice, including a law I shepherded through the Minnesota State Legislature on women's right to know. This law simply requires a physician to provide a woman seeking an abortion information about medical risks. I can't imagine a world in which a physician performs a non-emergent medical procedure on any person without explaining their options and risks beforehand, but that is apparently the world my Democrat colleagues want to live in. As a co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, one of my highest priorities as a Member of Congress is protecting innocent life. This bill is a direct, tragic attack on life, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, President Biden's failure to lead has resulted in a national security and humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan that we cannot ignore. Now the Taliban is back and the United States is less safe. The President has offered no specific plan for getting those Americans out of Afghanistan safely. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Gallagher), from Wisconsin's Eighth Congressional District.

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 provide for additional consideration of H.R. 5071, authored by Representative Gallagher. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I will just say, it has been a long and bumpy road to get here so I am happy to finally be here on the floor with the rule. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 601 provides for the consideration of two controversial partisan bills and deems the $3.5 trillion reconciliation resolution adopted that strips away local control and adds trillions to the national debt. The bill deemed adopted under this rule is S. Con. Res. 14, the $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending binge that passed the Senate earlier this month. Madam Speaker, prices are at a 13-year high, and inflation is rising. President Biden has already spent $1.9 trillion and is now looking to spend an additional $3.5 trillion, all while his administration pays Americans not to work and stifles our robust economy. Not only does this budget call for the highest sustained Federal spending level in American history, but it also amounts to a whopping $68 trillion over the next decade. It raises taxes on the American people, shifts jobs overseas, and taxes American employers at one of the highest rates in the world. It eliminates ``right to work'' protection and does nothing to address the historic flow of illegal immigration at the southern border. Democrats know their proposals are unpopular. They can't even get their own conference to agree. Instead, they are resorting to smoke and mirrors to push it through and hoping the American people aren't paying attention. Where is the transparency? If Democrats truly want to serve and help the American people, they need far more transparency and input from everyone, not just a few. This is no way to build a budget. Madam Speaker, then there is H.R. 4, which would make changes to the Voting Rights Act and strips State and local governments of their ability to manage their own elections. The Constitution places the responsibility for elections at the State level, and we have a long history of letting each State run their own elections. But H.R. 4 grants the Federal Government unprecedented control over State and local elections. It empowers the Attorney General to bully States and forces those States to seek Federal approval before making changes to their own voting laws. H.R. 4 also provides incentives for advocacy groups to file as many objections as possible to manufacture litigation in the hope of triggering coverage under the Voting Rights Act. We need safeguards that make it easy to vote and hard to cheat. H.R. 4 is not the solution. Madam Speaker, finally, the final bill in this resolution is the Senate amendment to H.R. 3684, which provides for $1.2 trillion in new infrastructure spending. Madam Speaker, I hate to say it, but my Democrat colleagues are using the bipartisan infrastructure framework to force their Members to also push through trillions more in their outlandish spending resolution. Our constituents are tired of Washington playing games with their livelihoods. To be sure, investing in our Nation's infrastructure is critical. However, only a fraction of this $1 trillion-plus bill is for roads, bridges, and other projects the American people would consider traditional infrastructure. With tens of billions for electric vehicle plug-ins, Amtrak, and light rail, if you live in a deep blue city, this bill is for you. But if you are one of the millions of Americans in a more rural area, this bill leaves you behind. Madam Speaker, our country's infrastructure should not be tied to the Democrats' partisan spending spree, especially during a pandemic. But here we are. Until Democrats stop playing games and work with their colleagues on a truly bipartisan compromise, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bills. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

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

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Madam Speaker, Democrats continue to ram through controversial policies and reckless spending with a complete disregard for the rules and with no consideration of what those decisions will mean for future generations and what they have to pay back. President Biden took office saying he would be President for everybody, but he certainly isn't acting like that. The legislation before us today that is included in this rule would leave rural communities behind, concentrate even more power at the Federal level, and tax and spend recklessly. The President is too busy pressuring Members of his own party to support $5 trillion in spending to even address the crisis in Afghanistan. Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule and the underlying bills, and I ask Members to do the same. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

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

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

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

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH

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

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I rise today to remember Red Lake Nation Police Officer Ryan Andrew Bialke, who was killed in the line of duty on Tuesday, July 27. His death is an unbelievable tragedy--one that is felt by the community, state, and region. Officer Bialke always wanted to help others. After graduating from Rasmussen College, he moved to Bemidji and joined the Red Lake Nation Police Department, where he served the community for the past six years. He was an SOR officer, a breacher for the Emergency Response Team, and in charge of the Search and Rescue Dive Team. He was dedicated to the community in which he worked, often spending time with Red Lake's children and families--always willing to go the extra mile. He is survived by his wife, Hester, his children, his mother and brothers, and many other family members and friends. He is lovingly remembered as a kind, outgoing person who loved hockey, fishing, hunting, road trips, country music, and spending time with his family, friends, and other loved ones. He will be sorely missed. I am eternally grateful for Officer Bialke's sacrifice, and the sacrifices the men and women of law enforcement make every day as they put their lives on the line to keep us safe.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, most of Minnesota is in extreme drought, and many of our farmers are facing a tremendous hardship. There are reports that herd culling is already being done around the region due to the lack of quality feed, and farmers will soon be forced to make impossible decisions regarding their crops and livestock. The situation is serious and demands our attention. I have asked the administration to allow emergency haying and grazing on CRP lands now, but that request was met with silence. If the drought continues to worsen, and if the administration does not act, the impacts on our economy will be far-reaching. In the meantime, I stand ready to assist my constituents in navigating these challenges and working toward quick recovery.

Mrs. FISCHBACH

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I wanted to comment a little on the comments regarding the makeup of the select committee. Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that when Speaker Pelosi was asked if she could veto Republican picks for the select committee, Speaker Pelosi responded: Yes, we will see who they nominate. That opens the door for the committee's work to be corrupted even before it begins, and she continues to have full control over the members of that committee. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 503, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. There is no doubt that what transpired on January 6 was a dark day, but instead of a good-faith effort to reach an objective conclusion, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have placed partisan, divisive politics ahead of the interests of the American people. Most fundamental to any objective investigation is being free from political influence and partisan bias. Unfortunately, this resolution fails to meet that basic benchmark, as Democrats refuse to put together a truly bipartisan commission, with equal authority given to all members, not just the majority. It appears my colleagues are more interested in reaching the predetermined outcome of their own narrative than truly investigating the January 6 attack. The resolution itself is full of charged language that implies an outcome. In fact, two bipartisan committees in the Senate have already conducted wide-ranging investigations and issued their joint report. Their report, which is more than 100 pages, outlines a timeline of events and a series of recommendations for moving forward. The Architect of the Capitol has also already been given $10 million to investigate the security failures on January 6. Why are we replicating that work? The Department of Justice and the FBI have already arrested and charged more than 500 people for crimes ranging from disorderly conduct to theft of government property to assaulting a Federal law enforcement officer. Those individuals are being adjudicated by the courts as we speak. That process will continue for some time. That is the way it should work. Instead, Democrats are injecting partisanship into the equation, hoping to stretch out an investigation long enough to distract from their abject failure to govern, while the American people are left to suffer the consequences of that failure. While we spend time discussing this partisan committee, American farmers are facing a severe drought, gas prices are going up, inflation is rising, businesses can't find employees, and there is a crisis at the southern border. We need to spend our time finding solutions and helping Americans, not creating partisan commissions to do work that has already been done competently by the U.S. Senate and by law enforcement. Not only would this select committee not prohibit interfering with ongoing law enforcement investigations that are already yielding significant results, but it would lack the enforcement powers of those existing investigations. Even worse, Speaker Pelosi would have the ability to handpick the entirety of the committee. If Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats were serious about this, they might have considered acting sooner than 6 months after the fact. The standing committees of this body already have the jurisdiction and the authority to investigate January 6, and the Speaker could have directed them to open an investigation at any time. But perhaps most important is our obligation to the brave men and women of law enforcement who responded to the Capitol and surrounding areas on January 6, members of the U.S. Capitol Police, the D.C. Metropolitan Police, the National Guard, and the many other State and Federal agencies who assisted in restoring order. We owe it to them to ensure that any investigation we undertake is one that is fair, bipartisan, and honorable, absent the ulterior motives and partisan politics that so often plague us. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, H. Res. 503 falls far short. For that reason, I oppose the legislation, and I urge other Members to do so. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.