Scott Fitzgerald

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 963. H.R. 963 undermines freedom of contract as well as consumer choice by banning informed, consenting adults from freely entering into contracts to arbitrate disputes. Arbitration generally works well and is a fair and effective way to resolve disputes. While civil litigation can be long, complex, and costly, arbitration provides a cheaper and efficient process to resolve disputes in a timely manner. Banning predispute arbitration agreements would mean Americans spend more time in court with no guarantee of better outcomes. Banning arbitration agreements during a time of significant inflation and in the middle of a supply chain crisis will effectively lower Americans' income. While larger companies may be able to deal with the expense of a slew of new lawsuits, this change will cause harm to smaller businesses that may not survive lengthy and costly litigation battles. Because postdispute arbitrations are rare, banning arbitration agreements will flood the court system. For one thing, some claims that are addressed through arbitration now may be individualized, making them unsuitable for class treatment. Even where claims can't be combined, a plaintiff may still be worse off as a class member than he would be with the claim in arbitration. This is because the benefits of arbitration, particularly lower litigation costs, coincide with lower revenue for others, such as trial lawyers. Banning certain predispute arbitration clauses and similar policy will benefit trial lawyers, not necessarily consumers. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, instead of setting one standard and having everyone play by the same rules, the Democrats have singled out the unions for favorable treatment. This legislation bans predispute arbitration for nonunion employees while preserving these benefits for union employees. This discrepancy makes no sense and, unfortunately, smacks of political favoritism. Arbitration offers a faster and cheaper path to resolution of a dispute. Taking this path away from nonunion employees leaves these workers to the mercy of--like we said earlier--the high-priced trial lawyers, while union workers maintain the benefit of arbitration. My amendment would remove this carve-out for union employees and restore parity between union and nonunion workers. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle already shut down my amendment to limit attorneys' fees to a reasonable amount so that consumers are protected. I am disappointed by that. They also rejected my amendment to reduce the cost of this bill by exempting contracts for critical supplies that have been affected by the Biden administration's supply chain crisis. Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment to protect workers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I inform the gentleman from New York that we have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I wanted to shine some light on a topic that many Wisconsinites and Americans may not really be tracking very closely. After over a year under President Biden and his administration, it is clear that the policies are having an adverse effect on small business. It is raising the price of goods, which people can see right now when they go to market, when they purchase gas, and it is slowing the economy. While my colleagues across the aisle have been really, I think, unable to enact an agenda that would combat this, the Biden administration's unaccountable and unelected bureaucrats are trying their hardest to expand and enact these reckless policies. That is what I wanted to touch on today. President Biden's executive orders, of which he signed many right after being sworn in as President, have had an adverse effect on competition. They consolidate sweeping government power over things like agriculture, which is near and dear to my own State of Wisconsin; the airlines; the banking industry; broadband; health and healthcare products; meat packers, which we are all well aware of; and the technology industry. It is a broad scope of items that are affected. However, robust enforcement of the antitrust laws could provide substantial benefit to consumers because that would help ensure that the markets are competitive, particularly from predatory actions as we have seen specific to Big Tech. However, it is clear that the administration's actions are not narrowly targeted at Big Tech where it may be considered appropriate. But they are part of an effort to expand government. And this is kind of a dirty little secret right now. Control over the vast sectors I just mentioned are all being done under the guise of Big Tech. Giving these agencies broader authority is not really going to do anything to enhance competition, so what we see is the heavy hand of government, which is right now crushing small business with the one-size-fits-all mandates, also allowing these agencies more authority over the economy. This will make government ultimately less accountable. Rather than promoting competition, the Federal Trade Commission is now imposing more costs on businesses. They are driving up prices on consumers, and this ultimately will force inflation even higher. There is just too much cash in the economy right now with very few supplies and services available. That is what inflation is. The FTC and the DOJ recently announced that they will be revising merger guidelines out of nowhere, out of the blue, and seem to assume that mergers harm competition and fail to realize efficiencies. Companies are also facing the FTC inquiries related to unionization and environmental and social issues, which are well outside of the agency's mission and also is not related to their responsibilities in and around upholding competition. The FTC has also required prior approval for future deals from businesses with a previous violation; again, all of a sudden, out of the blue, effectively making them guilty without the presumption of innocence. Even more bizarre than we could ever imagine, many of the actions have been done using so-called ``zombie votes'' from a commissioner who is no longer there; not even in the system. The clear intent of these actions is to discourage businesses to engage in the legal conduct of mergers. Even former President Obama's Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, numerous times has stated that these policies will reduce supply, which will increase prices while discouraging investment. If the FTC and the unaccountable bureaucrats at the other agencies, such as the FDIC, continue to stray from the rule of law, Americans will face higher prices.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of life. This Saturday, as many of the previous speakers had alluded to, is the 49th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. As such, it is a fitting time to talk about this administration's radical anti-life policies for which some of us were caught off guard when President Biden was running for the Presidency. Over the past year we have watched President Biden and the Democrats continually push what I would consider an anti-life full agenda. First, they gutted the Hyde amendment, a longstanding provision of appropriations bills that prevents taxpayer funding for abortions and has saved an estimated 2 million lives. Then the Biden Administration's Department of Health and Human Services changed the rules to essentially require healthcare providers to perform abortions, despite any moral objections they may have. Finally, my Democrat colleagues passed a radical bill that removes existing limits on abortion and allows abortions on demand, no matter the age of the fetus. Mr. Speaker, I will always push back on their anti-life stances with a clear and strong message of full opposition. I believe that every human life is precious and should be protected at every stage. Throughout my career, I have always stood for life. I will continue to fight against this administration's anti-life policies.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I just reiterate that I think there is a lot of support in the Chamber, and I support it as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1192, the Puerto Rico Recovery Accuracy in Disclosures Act of 2021. In 2016, Puerto Rico was experiencing severe financial pressure from significant debt and related obligations. In response to Puerto Rico's financial distress, Congress enacted the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act of 2016. That 2016 law created a bankruptcy process for Puerto Rico. Like existing bankruptcy law in 2016, the law permitted certain professionals working on Puerto Rico's bankruptcy, like lawyers and accountants, to apply to get paid for their services pending judicial approval. But the 2016 law lacked certain disclosure requirements for these professionals that would typically apply to restructuring professionals in other bankruptcy cases. The gap in the 2016 law created the potential for undisclosed conflicts of interest for professionals involved in Puerto Rico's bankruptcy. This bill fills the gap by mandating the necessary disclosure requirements. The bill also establishes a process for overseeing and policing disclosures that bankruptcy professionals make. H.R. 1192 passed the House unanimously in February of 2021. In December, the Senate passed H.R. 1192 with a few minor amendments to improve the bill's administrative abilities. The amendments also enhanced the incentives for professionals to make significant efforts to comply with the new disclosure requirements. H.R. 1192 will serve important goals and interests, including the interests of creditors and taxpayers and Puerto Rico itself. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, this has been a year of crisis under the leadership of President Joe Biden. At the southern border, our country was noticeably lacking leadership and solutions from the White House. Instead, President Biden took regressive actions. He halted construction on the border wall, brought back catch and release, and got rid of the remain in Mexico policy. Because of these decisions, over 1.7 million illegal immigrants have been encountered at the southern border since President Biden took office. The number of illegal crossings at the border has risen at a rate faster under President Biden than at any other time in recent history. U.S. Customs and Border Protection reported that fentanyl seizures increased 134 percent in fiscal year 2021. I saw this crisis firsthand when I visited the southern border with my colleagues, and I have led and supported legislative solutions in Congress to combat this crisis. It is disheartening and unacceptable that President Biden has neither visited the border to witness the crisis, nor has he proposed solutions to control the unmanageable levels of border crossings and fentanyl trafficking. To say President Biden has under-delivered to the American people is beyond an understatement. Madam Speaker, I say it again. This year has been a year of crisis under the leadership of President Biden.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, as we are hearing from many of my colleagues tonight, there is no shortage of policy failures to reflect on as we approach President Biden's 1-year anniversary. But the one that is still beyond belief and a complete disaster is the cancellation of the Keystone pipeline project. On day one, just hours after being sworn into office, the President halted construction of the pipeline, bringing down thousands of good jobs, many of them in my home State of Wisconsin and many of them in my district. This decision undermined our country's energy independence and destroyed a safe and efficient route to transport oil. Oh, and now Russia is flush with cash as they market their oil around the entire globe. That is right. Killing the Keystone project didn't just stop the transportation of oil; it completely reconfigured the way that this works globally. Listen, while President Biden continues to ignore the negative implications of his agenda, my Republican colleagues and I have been on the forefront proposing solutions--in this case, the Keystone XL Pipeline Construction and Jobs Preservation Act. Madam Speaker, after seeing the disaster that President Biden left in his wake after only 1 year, I can only fear what will come in the next 3 years.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in objection to H.R. 5746, which is the latest attempt by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to ignore the 10th Amendment and dump on the State legislatures of this Nation, basically telling them, ``You are incompetent,'' not to mention the clerks. Democrats first tried to barge through the front door of election administration with H.R. 1. After that failed, they tried an overhaul on the backdoor functions. And this bill represents a full-blown takeover. The supposedly slimmed-down bill would still override State laws by creating a Federal right to no-excuse mail-in voting and requires States to accept late-arriving ballots as long as they have timely postmarks. It is kind of a joke. It would automatically give felons the right to vote. Great. It would also override State voter ID requirements. Only a few months ago, Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argued that voter ID laws suppressed voter turnout, only to flip-flop once they saw that the public overwhelmingly supports proof of identity before casting a ballot--80 percent in some States. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have implemented strong voter ID laws during my time in the Wisconsin legislature. Unfortunately, leading up to the 2020 election, I saw these protections steamrolled under the guise of the pandemic. Let's talk about the Supreme Court. In 2013, a decision recognized that we are no longer living in the Jim Crow era. The original Voting Rights Act worked, and extreme policies like preclearance are no longer required. Allegations that election integrity measures that have been adopted by States, such as Texas and Georgia, amount to anything close to Jim Crow-era restrictions is a slap in the face to those who endured real discrimination. There is no voting rights crisis. This is not about ensuring access to the polls. This is about taking power from the State legislatures and concentrating our election systems in the hands of Federal bureaucrats.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to be here today to offer this MTR. If we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs to consider an amendment to H.R. 1836 which ensures members of the Armed Forces granted a general discharge under honorable conditions solely for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine are eligible for the GI Bill education benefits of which the Speaker just spoke about. Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask unanimous consent to include the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, on August 24, 2021, the Secretary of Defense issued a directive requiring mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for all servicemembers, including those in the Ready Reserve and the National Guard. Despite the challenges this vaccine mandate currently faces in the Supreme Court, the Defense Department has proceeded to discharge those who refuse the vaccine. Hundreds of soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardians have already been discharged, and as many as 20,000 servicemembers remain at risk over being involuntarily removed from service. It is outrageous. To prevent those who have refused the vaccine from being dishonorably discharged, Congress included a provision in the fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act limiting discharges for failure to receive the COVID-19 vaccine to either an honorable discharge or a general discharge under honorable conditions. This change succeeded in stopping further disciplinary action or court-martial for those who refuse the vaccine, however it potentially leaves many veterans in limbo between leaving the service with full benefits or having their education benefits stripped as they walk out the door. As many of my veteran colleagues in this Chamber know, those servicemembers who receive a general discharge under honorable conditions are ineligible for the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits due to restrictions Congress implemented in 2011. While this change was intended to open eligibility status to members of the National Guard, there will now be a group of veterans who have served honorably up until the point of refusing COVID-19 vaccine who will now have their education benefits completely wiped out. For those who may not know the full breadth of education benefits entitled to a veteran, let me give you just a couple of items. A veteran who was served at least 36 months on Active Duty is entitled to 100 percent of Post-9/11 GI benefits. That includes full tuition coverage for public schools, or roughly $26,000 annually for private education or apprenticeships.

Mr. FITZGERALD. That veteran also receives a monthly housing allowance which varies by location, plus $1,000 annually to cover books and other school supplies. Add that up, and we are talking about well over $100,000 worth of education benefits a veteran loses simply by having their discharge characterized as general under honorable. And let's be clear on who this is truly affecting, Mr. Speaker. We are not talking about recruits who are fresh out of basic training or those discharged at the MEPS station. These are men and women who have done their time, who have paid their dues, and who have served with distinction up until the point of refusing this vaccine. And now we are going to tell them that we don't care how spotless their record may have been beforehand because they made a moral, ethical and even religious objection to a vaccine? Those who have fought to defend our country should not be deprived of the benefits they so rightly deserve simply for refusing to comply with this divisive, and potentially unlawful, vaccine mandate. My motion to recommit corrects this disparity by ensuring any member of the armed services who receives a general discharge under honorable conditions solely for the refusal of the COVID-19 vaccine is entitled to education benefits. We are a country that rewards our heroes, not punishes them, and this motion to recommit makes sure of that. I urge the adoption of this motion to recommit.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5314. The bill is simply another political attack by the Democrats on President Trump. It also destroys the separation of powers between the President and Congress. I introduced an amendment to the bill to require Congress to be notified when the AG terminates a special counsel, but unfortunately, the Rules Committee failed to adopt it. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent the last several years peddling bogus allegations that President Trump colluded with Russia. Now the Durham investigation has proved these allegations were a sham that wasted years of time and resources, and now we know the Clinton campaign paid Fusion GPS to draft the dossier as opposition research. Fusion GPS relied on information from Igor Danchenko, a Russian who worked at the Brookings Institution. Mr. Danchenko based his information on tales from Chuck Dolan, a public relations executive who worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign in the past. The whole scheme was a vicious circle that began and ended with the Clinton campaign. We cannot have a bill that works to prevent overreach by one branch of government. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, the Biden administration's energy agenda is a disaster. The President's decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline cost hundreds of jobs in Wisconsin and undermined our Nation's energy independence, and his policies have made energy prices soar. As a result, the American people are paying the price at the gas pump. Part of my district, the Fifth Congressional District in southeastern Wisconsin, is an EPA-designated ozone nonattainment zone, another contributor to the very high gas prices that we are seeing. This designation requires area gas stations to use more expensive, reformulated gasoline. The increased cost of the reformulated gas is passed on to consumers, resulting in gas prices 10 to 15 cents higher in some counties in my district, compared to the county right next to it. The irony is that President Biden is blaming oil and gas companies for manipulating gas prices and is encouraging the FTC to investigate. In reality, it is the administration's old, failed policies that are responsible for the manipulation of the gas prices. The truth is Americans cannot afford this way of life.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to defend the sanctity of life. Today, the Supreme Court is hearing the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. I am glad the Supreme Court has decided to take up this important case in which they will consider whether all pre-viability bans on abortion are unconstitutional. Scientific advancements have rendered the viability standard established since Roe as outdated. Today, we know the following: By 15 weeks, babies in the womb have a heartbeat. They have arms, legs, fingers, and toes. And they have fully developed hearts and can respond to light and touch almost anywhere else on their bodies. President Biden and my colleagues on the left have taken an anti-life stance and pushed policies that would require taxpayers to fund abortions. They also would require healthcare providers to perform abortions, despite any moral objections that they may have, and remove existing protections to allow abortions on demand, no matter what the age of the fetus. This is wrong. I value unborn innocent lives and I will always push back with a clear and strong message.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I am joined by my colleagues, Congressman Kind, Congressman Pocan, Congressman Steil, and Congressman Grothman. We are from Wisconsin, and we are here to request a moment of silence and pay respects to those who suffered in the senseless violence at the Waukesha Christmas parade last week on November 21, 2021. The attack left a devastating impact on our friends and our neighbors in the community. Anyone who regularly attends the Waukesha Christmas parade will tell you how joyous a celebration this parade typically is. It brings the community together. It is then inconceivable that an individual would shatter lives and uproot our community in this horrific way. We are grateful for the firefighters, police officers, healthcare professionals, and volunteers who immediately answered the call for help that evening and who continue to help those who remain in serious condition. I know the people of Waukesha; they are tough and kind. I know that we will get through this unspeakable difficulty together as a community. I pray for healing and peace for all those who were affected. May love and strength lead us forward in the face of this evil. Madam Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to join me in observing a moment of silence in honor of Virginia Sorenson, Leanna Owen, Tamara Durand, Wilhelm Hospel, Jane Kulich, and Jackson Sparks, as well as those still in critical condition and those suffering from trauma following this tragedy. Madam Speaker, I ask that the House observe a moment of silence.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I was unable to be recorded for votes on Monday, November 1, 2021. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on rollcall No. 340, and NAY on rollcall No. 341.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Miller for yielding. Madam Speaker, our Nation's students are the future. They are our future police officers, doctors, technicians, and manufacturers. And to accomplish this, students will need localized education that is sensitive to the thoughts and concerns of students, parents, and teachers. That is the system we have had in the United States of America for many years. But lo and behold, inside this multitrillion-dollar infrastructure budget reconciliation package that is being crafted right now, as we stand here this evening, there are plans--and I don't want to blow this out of proportion--to nationalize and radicalize our Nation's education system. The Washington takeover of education would give the Biden administration unprecedented levels of Federal oversight and the ability to approve early education standards and provide childcare to wealthy families while pushing small providers out of the market. This proposal comes at a time when across the country parents are already feeling a little bit cast aside or excluded from some of the major decisions that are being made in their children's education. Students are being taught divisive and harmful curriculum. The one that is obviously at the forefront is CRT. When parents come to their local school board meetings to express their concerns, they have been met with hostility, and in some cases--extreme cases--they arrested a parent. It is crazy. This is especially important for parents in Wisconsin, my home State. Parents are fed up with the bureaucracy telling them they--not the parents--know better. And when parents ask what their children are being taught, they often get a very limited and unsatisfactory response. So I came up, along with some of my colleagues, with a bill that we thought made sense; very easy, common sunshine-type of bill that ultimately would resolve many of these issues. We call it the CRT Transparency Act. Madam Speaker, the bill requires schools to post their curriculums online so that parents can see what their students are being taught. Seems simple to me. Just post it online. You have got nothing to hide. It gives the parents the opportunity to see exactly what their children are being taught. The merits of this bill, I think, would ultimately warrant no controversy. The bill doesn't ask school boards to make private information public. Elementary and secondary curriculums are already public information. The parents who wish to call their school districts and inquire can do that. The problem is, the onus should not be on the parents to jump through hoops to get this information. No matter what the class may be, the bottom line is that the parents have the right to easily access this information. If schools aren't teaching divisive and backward curriculum, then there should be absolutely no reason not to make this information public. I have spoken to local education leaders back in southeastern Wisconsin, the Fifth Congressional District, who agree with the commonsense sentiment behind the proposals. Unfortunately, I think that President Biden, the Secretary of Education, and the Democrats don't agree, necessarily, with the parents having that much input. They certainly believe that they could bring influence to that entire educational system, which is not something they want. That is why the attorney general issued a memo instructing the Justice Department to investigate parents speaking up at the local school boards. This is wrong. Despite what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may believe, parents do have the right to speak up at school board meetings and complain and be vocal about what their children are being taught. In fact, this is the hallmark of being a good parent, right? You just don't want to send your kid off to class and not be involved in what they are involved in every day. What we saw in Virginia last night sent an undeniably clear message. Those who embrace radical education policies and box out our parents do not represent what the American people want. My colleagues across the aisle want you to believe that they prioritize students and education, but the text of this budget reconciliation will tell a very different narrative. A narrative that expands the Federal Government's role in education at the expense of good parenting and student outcomes. I, and I think my Republican colleagues, will oppose any proposal that puts the bureaucracy before students.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, the biggest tax increase for small business in over 50 years--let me say it again--the biggest tax increase for small business in over 50 years. This is what President Biden and my colleagues across the aisle are proposing in order to pay for part of their multi-trillion-dollar spending package. The President and the Democrats have proposed a range of options that will hurt economic growth and fall on the backs of small businesses, like raising the corporate tax, raising the individual tax rates, taxing unrealized capital gains, and giving the IRS authority to spy on Americans' bank accounts. In announcing the tax increases, the Biden administration said their agenda: ``Will protect 97 percent of small business owners from tax increases, while delivering tax cuts to more than 3.9 million entrepreneurs.'' But here is the problem. It doesn't add up. The statement doesn't add up. It doesn't hold up to the scrutiny. The reality is that approximately 1.4 million small businesses are structured as C corporations, meaning that they will be subjected to the proposed 28 percent corporate tax rate, as opposed to the current rate of 21 percent. Let's talk about S corps. If you are not familiar with the S corp or the LLC, an individual small business owner's taxes flow through the S corp. So what is going to happen? They are going to increase the individual tax rate. What will that mean? S corps and LLCs will see an increase in the amount of taxes that they are paying. Add in, as my other colleagues have already brought up this evening on Special Orders, rising inflation rates, increased cost of goods and services, shipping delays, labor shortages, and these small businesses will find themselves in a hole. They are trying to jump start themselves right now out of a pandemic, and we are going to tax them more? It makes absolutely no sense. For nearly a decade, I was the owner of a small business. If you would have told me in 1990, when I started my small business, that I would be facing labor shortages, tax increases, and supply delays, guess what? I wouldn't have started a small business. You would be out of your mind to start a small business under those types of circumstances. And guess what? We are seeing that happen in my home State of Wisconsin. The restaurant industry, gyms, manufacturers, construction companies, they are all struggling right now. If you are back in the district and you are talking to people and you are at a chamber meeting or you are at some type of specific association related to an industry, they will continue to tell you we are in trouble. Yet, the Biden administration and the Democrats are looking at tax increases on these small businesses. We must give small businesses a chance to succeed. This trillion- dollar reconciliation package and the subsequent tax increases do just the opposite. If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle truly want to save small businesses, they will drop the spending plan, cut taxes for small businesses, replenish the Restaurant Revitalization Fund, and drop the arbitrary vaccine mandate. That is what would get employees back to work. These small-business owners deserve an opportunity to chase the American Dream. As it stands, this reconciliation package will take that opportunity away from them.

Mr. FITZGERALD

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, amnesty is not infrastructure, and I know this seems obvious to many Americans, but I know for some of my colleagues they are trying to redefine. And what is tucked away right now in the $5.5 trillion spending package are provisions that would give amnesty to over a million illegal immigrants. I have been to the border. Some of my colleagues that I have been able to visit the border with are here this evening. Eye-opening experiences in McAllen, Texas. And in the travel back to Houston to fly back to Wisconsin, I saw a plane that was full of refugees with brown envelopes and destinations written in black magic marker. And I just wondered who could possibly be sponsoring all of these individuals and where would they end up. We know that there is 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. today. Not only does this provision pose a risk to national security, but studies have found that it is going to cost us trillions of dollars in payouts in increased entitlement benefits. Mr. Speaker, what I witnessed, and I think what I have experienced back in Wisconsin, has put us in a position where unless we act now, unless we act swiftly to get a handle on the southern border, we will no longer have the borders that bind us Americans. And I don't think the urgency could be any more clear and any more in front of us right now.