Debbie Lesko

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I want to urge my Democratic colleagues to vote against this rule and H.R. 1140 and the previous question so we can assert my anti-BDS amendment. The bill, as I stated, would eliminate TSA's ability to immediately fire employees for serious misconduct, like what happened in California. The bill would also take away TSA's ability to give the TSOs many of the benefits that they currently get, such as bonuses and overtime pay. I really think we need to work together to ensure TSA employees are happy and enjoy their work, and that is why I said I am supportive of increasing their pay, especially that of good and productive TSOs. We need to provide incentives to help bring good morale to these hardworking employees, not the opposite. Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Scanlon for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, this bill has six main aspects that I have major concerns with. First, the bill eliminates TSA's unique personnel management authorities created in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001, commonly known as ATSA. This legislation moves employees of the TSA into the government pay schedule. In 2001, when Congress created TSA, the decision was made not to do this in order to give the agency flexibility. At present, the TSA Administrator has authority over employee pay, hiring, termination, and discipline. TSA has repeatedly told us that placing the screener workforce under title 5 would tie the agency's hands related to national security policy, workforce management, and collective bargaining. Specifically, TSA would not be able to continue a one-step removal process for employees found to have committed serious security breaches or misconduct, such as allowing unauthorized access to secure areas or allowing threat items and illicit contraband through the security checkpoint. TSA's ability to move employees to different checkpoints based on passenger volume would also be curtailed. Currently, TSA can set new security policies TSOs must follow and move TSOs between checkpoints to manage passenger volume. Under this bill, however, both actions would be subject to collective bargaining and the security measures could be limited as a result. TSA's ability to set security screening policies, such as when and how to conduct pat-downs, would be negotiable with the union instead of being driven by national security imperatives. In fact, the bill eliminates the TSA's authority to immediately fire employees for serious misconduct, including sexual assault, drug and alcohol abuse, arrest, theft, and intentional security breaches, such as allowing guns, knives, and explosives past the checkpoint. In recent years, there have been several incidents of TSOs assaulting passengers, stealing passenger items, and allowing drugs past the checkpoint. Now, we all know the majority of TSOs are good people doing good jobs. But there are some bad actors. On February 6, 2020, the State of California announced the arrest and prosecution of a former TSA screener resulting from a joint investigation effort by Federal, State, and local enforcement agencies and the TSA. According to the criminal complaint, the TSA screener used fraud or deceit to falsely imprison a woman going through security while stationed as a travel document checker at Los Angeles International Airport in June of 2019. The screener allegedly insisted that the woman passenger needed extra screening in an elevator, where he told the passenger to reveal her full breasts and to lift her pants and underwear. The victim in the case stated that she complied with the TSO's instructions out of fear that he would inappropriately touch her. This sort of horrible incident is why it is imperative that TSA retain its one-step removal process for employees who sully the integrity and honor of the TSA mission and put American travelers at risk. Under title 5 protections, this TSA screener that I just talked about could remain on the Federal Government's payroll for years before removal. That is wrong. Under this bill, TSA leadership would lose the flexibility to respond effectively to incidents such as the one I just described. The second reason I have concerns about this bill is just recently in 2019, the bipartisan Blue Ribbon Panel for the Transportation Security Administration on Human Capital Service Delivery specifically recommended that TSA not--I repeat not--switch to the general schedule, GS, system, calling it overly rigid and outdated. This panel is comprised of former officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations, and it is led by a Department of Homeland Security official from the Obama administration. They all pointed out that, under the current system and law, TSA can pay its employees more than they can make under title 5. It called on TSA to use the statutory flexibility Congress provided it to provide targeted pay increases, which I support. The Blue Ribbon Panel specifically recommended against the policies contained in H.R. 1140. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the Blue Ribbon Panel report, titled ``Final Findings and Recommendations, Blue Ribbon Panel for the Transportation Security Administration.'' Final Findings and Recommendations Blue Ribbon Panel for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has faced numerous challenges with human capital policy, operations, and services to support mission requirements. The Agency determined it needed a third-party review to identify the underlying problems and recommend solutions. ICF was contracted to perform the work and convened a Blue-Ribbon Panel (the Panel) to review, analyze, and make recommendations for improvements. This Report documents the ``As Is'' state and recommendations for improvement. It is based on extensive interviews with Office of Human Capital (OHC) and other headquarters (HQ) stakeholders, interviews with airport leaders, and focus groups with the National Advisory Council (NAC) and Transportation Security Officers (TSOs). In addition, the Panel reviewed documents and data provided by TSA. ICF also analyzed TSA data to look for trends, corroboration, or potential root causes of identified issues. Because of the nature of the Panel's work--identifying problems and recommending solutions--this report documents difficult, long-standing challenges. The Panel also found areas of excellence. The TSO workforce, for example, demonstrates a remarkable level of dedication to their work. Even during the seven-week partial government shutdown, the vast majority of TSOs showed up and did their jobs. Some even participated in recruiting events to help TSA recruit new officers. Given the low pay and difficult working conditions that are inherent in TSA's screening work, the dedication these officers show is extraordinary. TSA's low ranking in the Partnership for Public Service's Best Places to Work in the Federal Government may lead some to conclude that there are no great leaders in TSA. That is not true. The Panel found there are airports with outstanding leaders whose work clearly demonstrates excellence. The challenge facing TSA is to take the lessons learned from those airports, feedback from employees and stakeholders, and Panel recommendations to transform human capital operations agency-wide. The Panel's key findings and recommendations are categorized into two major areas: Examining Human Capital Service Delivery and Supporting the Transportation Security Officer (TSO) Workforce. TSA human capital challenges include ineffective use of Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) flexibilities, an ill-defined service delivery model that relies on contractors with insufficient oversight and inadequate Human Capital Information Technology, poorly trained field staff, and a headquarters human capital office that lacks strategic focus and demonstrates insufficient teamwork. The policy and human capital operations challenges appear to result from deficiencies in the Office of Human Capital (OHC) and an inconsistent approach to field delivery of human capital services. The OHC suffers from a lack of teamwork and leadership challenges. Interviews with customers, stakeholders, and OHC staff make clear that human capital programs are not designed in the context of a cohesive strategy. OHC customers gave negative feedback on key programs, particularly human capital information technology systems, classification and position management, and hiring and pay, with a few bright spots in employee relations and training. OHC leaders consistently reported a culture where cooperation across OHC organizations was lacking and peer relationships are poor. TSA's Human Capital Office issues are significant, but the Panel has encountered other human capital organizations with such issues that have been transformed into effective units. With significant leadership support, the Panel believes the improvements in Human Capital Office leadership, work processes and policies required for TSA to have acceptable human capital services are achievable and has included recommendations for implementable and substantive changes that will provide a way forward for TSA. This report includes multiple recommendations. The most pressing among those recommendations are the need for more effective human capital leadership, a well thought out process for human capital service delivery, greater use of ATSA flexibilities, modern human capital technology, and standardizing and realigning the field human capital structure. Adoption of these recommendations, coupled with actions TSA is already taking to make improvements, should result in significantly improved human capital policies and services. The 2018 TSA Exit Survey report indicated employees were concerned about leadership issues, having experienced a ``lack of management skills,'' ``unfair practices (e.g., in performance appraisal, disciplinary actions, career advancement, etc.),'' ``unequal levels of respect,'' a ``hostile work environment,'' and ``inadequate communication with the workforce.'' TSOs perceive favoritism and express an inability to voice complaints about issues. The Panel believes the systemic problems with TSO pay may be a major contributor to some of those perceptions, due to the inability of TSOs (even those with exceptional performance ratings) to advance within their pay bands. Employee perceptions of leadership and organizational fairness may undermine their commitment to stay at TSA. Surveys and Focus Groups reveal that TSO pay is a key issue for the screening workforce, and a complex problem. These officers work long hours, have difficult working conditions, and are the backbone of the TSA mission. By some measures, TSO annual pay in some locations lags well behind industry counterparts. TSO perceptions regarding inequity in their pay are aggravated by the fact that their pay averages about one- third of that of TSA employees in Management, Administration and Professional (MAP) positions. The Panel recognizes that the nature of the TSO's work and that of employees in MAP positions means a disparity in pay is always going to exist. While there is no indication it was deliberate, TSA's use of its flexibilities has boosted MAP pay above government averages, with TSO pay remaining below those averages for comparable jobs. The disparity is driven in part by a pay and performance management process that provides little hope of movement, especially within the E-Band. A TSO at the bottom of the E- band, even with exceptional performance ratings year after year, would take more than 30 years to reach the top of the E-Band. This produces the effect that the E-Band pay range is illusory, with few TSOs in the middle or at the top of the band. TSO turnover is high in the first three years in comparison to other positions in TSA and in the federal workforce. TSO turnover is somewhat consistent with other low wage jobs in the private sector with comparable skill requirements for initial hiring, where annual turnover rates of 20 percent or more are common. That does not mean TSA should accept high turnover as a given. The cost of turnover (in terms of recruiting, hiring and training replacement officers and lower productivity of newer and less skilled officers) is high and the effect on the workforce which carries the screening workload in absence of a full TSO cohort is significant. If TSA can retain Officers beyond the first three years, turnover reduces to a much more manageable level. Turnover among longer term employees may be driven by the stability of employment and benefits TSOs receive. Although TSA operates outside of the general government pay and classification statutes found in Title 5 of the U.S. Code, the agency offers the same or better benefits as other agencies and provides greater job security than many private sector employers. As a result, if TSA can address pay, leadership, and turnover issues, the Panel believes the agency will see reduced costs, better morale, and a more stable workforce. This report includes recommendations to address TSO pay and advancement, and other critical issues for the TSO workforce. Although we often find that pay is a secondary issue for employees and other leadership issues tend to drive turnover, Focus Group findings highlight pay as the greatest issue driving turnover. The Panel acknowledges that TSA recognizes the pay issues and is seeking ways to address them. The scale of TSA operations means that even small across-the-board pay increases can cost tens of millions of dollars. The Panel recommends targeted pay raises, rather than across-the-board increases that might consume precious salary dollars to raise pay in locations where pay is not a problem. Although TSOs identify pay as the key driver of turnover, the Panel believes other problematic issues must be addressed as well. If pay problems are reduced, the other issues will continue to affect morale and turnover. Other key recommendations address the hiring process, which the Panel believes should be significantly modernized, and leader selection and development, which is essential to address many of the morale issues that are contributors to morale problems and turnover. The Panel also recommends changes to the promotion process and support for Information Technology improvements that can simultaneously increase operational efficiency and transparency, likely reducing concerns of favoritism expressed by the TSO workforce. One recommendation the Panel heard repeatedly from employees was moving TSA into the General Schedule (GS). The Panel does not agree. The General Schedule is a 70 year-old classification and compensation system from the last century and is the subject of countless studies and recommendations from good government organizations who consistently find it is too inflexible to meet the needs of the 21st century workforce. A better course of action is to use existing ATSA flexibility to improve the TSA pay system so that it operates at a level superior to the GS system. This Report provides a high-level roadmap for changes to TSA's Human Capital policies and processes, which if adopted, should have a significant positive impact on TSA workforce and mission operations.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, third, some benefits currently available to the screener workforce under ATSA would not be possible if this bill were to become law. The bill does not fix the morale problem. The bill does not guarantee additional pay or benefits for TSOs. It may actually make situations worse. The bill eliminates the authority TSA has to pay TSOs more than other Federal employees under title 5. It also eliminates several benefits, such as the broadest application of veterans' hiring preference in the Federal Government, meaning that veterans may not get the same preference that they do now; shift trades between employees; voluntary leave transfers; partial overtime pay as compensation for schedule changes; and career progression bonuses of up to 5 percent of a screener's salary. Fourth, we have yet to receive a CBO score. However, TSA estimates the bill will cost $1.2 billion over the next 5 years. To cover the cost, funding for security priorities would be reduced. The bill does not even have a specific authorization of appropriations or means of paying for moving these employees under title 5. The fifth reason I have a concern on this bill, H.R. 1140, amounts to a forced unionization of the TSA workforce and a forced designation of the union that will represent that same workforce. It does not allow for an intervening election for TSA screeners to choose their labor representation. As such, this bill benefits one specific union, the American Federation of Government Employees. The bill does not provide for an intervening election to give screeners the right to choose which union they want to represent them. In 2011, AFGE was recognized by the Obama administration to represent the screener workforce after two elections. Approximately 8,900 screeners voted for the union. However, today, there are approximately 45,000 screeners subject to this bill. While TSA employees did select AFGE as their bargaining agent in 2011, it is remarkable that this bill specifically dictates which union will be representing TSA employees without a more recent vote or all employees voting. Sixth, this bill, once again, is a partisan messaging bill that will not become law. We know that because I highly doubt the Senate is going to hear this bill. Yet again, the majority refuses to work with the minority to move viable legislation to address real problems. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions campaign, commonly known as BDS, is anti-Israel, anti-peace, and damaging to U.S. interests. This bill amends the Export Administration Act of 1979 to prohibit boycotts or requests for boycotts imposed by international governmental organizations against Israel. This will protect American companies from being forced to give information to international organizations for the furthering of boycotts against Israel. This bill establishes Congress' opposition to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and establishes that Congress considers the United Nations Human Rights Council's creation of a database of companies doing business in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights in March 2016 to be an act of BDS. We cannot be quiet when it comes to combating anti-Semitism and anti- Israel mentalities. We need to work together in Congress and pass commonsense legislation on this issue. H.R. 5595 does just that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I am a woman, so I obviously care and support equal rights for women. But I oppose this bill for three reasons. First, the bill is not constitutional. When the ERA originally passed Congress, it explicitly set a deadline for ratification. The deadline was in 1979, almost 41 years ago. Only 35 States of the 38 needed had ratified it. Then five States unratified it. So the count is down to 30. Thus, the equal rights amendment was dead. The U.S. Department of Justice issued a legal opinion just last month, reiterating that the ERA's ratification timeline is expired. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg said: The deadline passed. I would like to see a new beginning. I would like it to start over. Secondly, the ERA is not necessary. Women's equality of rights under the law is already recognized in our Constitution in the Fifth and 14th Amendments. The ACLU's women's rights director wrote: ``It has been clearly understood that the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination based on sex.'' Plus, many Federal, State, and local laws already prohibit sex discrimination. The third reason I oppose this bill: If ratified, the ERA would be used by pro-abortion groups to undo pro-life legislation and lead to more abortions and taxpayer funding of abortions. But don't take my word for it. Let's look at what pro-abortion groups have done and what they say. In 1998, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the State's ERA required the State to fund abortions. NARAL Pro-Choice America, which supports abortions, asserted that the ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion and would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws. In a 2019 letter to the House Judiciary Committee, the ACLU stated: The equal rights amendment could provide an additional layer of protection against restrictions on abortion. In conclusion, this bill is unconstitutional. The ERA is unnecessary, since constitutional Federal, State, and local laws already guarantee equal protections. And the ERA, if ratified, would be used by pro- abortion groups to undo pro-life laws.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize my home State of Arizona's birthday and our 108th anniversary of statehood. Since February 14, 1912, the great State of Arizona has welcomed those who wish to experience a life of prosperity, opportunity, growth, and a culture second to none. Every year people from all the over the world come to Arizona to experience our State's treasured beauty, and, of course, the five C's. I know I speak for all of us who live in Arizona when I say we are incredibly grateful to call the Grand Canyon State our home. Our State motto means ``God Enriches.'' Arizona is proof of that.

Mrs. LESKO

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

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Missouri.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I am waiting for another speaker, but I will yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things that my colleague from the Rules Committee, Ms. Scanlon, said. She said something to the effect of nothing in the Constitution sets a deadline. Well, I have to disagree with that. Actually, it is not just me; it is the Supreme Court. A 1921 Supreme Court decision, Dillon v. Gloss, affirmed that: Congress has the power to fix the definite time limit for ratification of a proposed constitutional amendment under its authority to determine the mode of ratification for an amendment under Article V of the Constitution. As I said before, this expired back in 1979. I mean, that is 41 years ago. Then, of course, back then, Congress came forward, and my understanding is they just did a majority vote instead of the two- thirds that I believe is needed to deal with a constitutional amendment. But no other States had ratified. In fact, by the 1979 deadline, five States had withdrawn their ratification. So you were at 35, then it went down to 30, and it is dead. When my colleague says Justice Ginsberg supports the ERA, I know that. That is my point. She does support the ERA. But even she said we need to start all over again because the deadline has passed. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order a resolution to prevent any moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracking on Federal lands unless authorized by Congress. Madam Speaker, 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. LESKO. Madam Speaker, this amendment would affirm that States should maintain primacy for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing and prevent any President from imposing a ban on hydraulic fracturing. Many of the Democratic candidates for President have pledged to ban hydraulic fracturing in the United States, a campaign promise straight out of the ``keep it in the ground'' playbook. While this widely used practice is often vilified by proponents of the Green New Deal, in fact, hydraulic fracturing is heavily regulated by the States and governed by stringent industry standards throughout the country. Thanks to hydraulic fracturing, U.S. gas bills have fallen by $13 billion collectively every year from 2007 to 2013. The U.S. is leading the way in emissions reductions through innovation in the energy sector. In 2017, U.S. carbon emissions reached the lowest level ever since 1992, and per capita emissions reached the lowest level since 1950. And, very importantly, the U.S. has become an energy exporter, and we no longer have to rely on OPEC oil like we did in the 1970s. Fracking and U.S. energy independence strengthens our national security. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to urge my Democratic colleagues to halt their attempts to change the rules and bring back an expired amendment that would rewrite our Constitution. Not only is this unprecedented, but it is wrong, and it is unconstitutional. I believe Congress should oppose pointless legislation to remove the deadline and focus, instead, on upholding women's rights, dignity, and opportunity. I urge my colleagues to reject this resolution and work together to promote truly helpful legislation for women. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and ``no'' on the underlying resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Scanlon for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I get to the points, I know that we differ on policy, but I have to tell you that I was offended by what I thought were racist and sexist comments made by my Democratic colleague about the Republican party makeup, and I totally disagree with her. Madam Speaker, to begin, I would like to clarify what H.J. Res 79 is. It is not the equal rights amendment. It is a date change. The legislation is a joint resolution removing the deadline for ratification of the equal rights amendment in States that the amendment shall be valid and adopted as part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-quarters of the States. Democrats say this is about equal rights for women. Well, I am a woman, and so I, obviously, support equal rights for women. But I oppose H.J. Res 79 for the following reasons: First: The bill is totally unconstitutional. When the ERA originally passed on March 22, 1972, Congress explicitly set a deadline for ratification stating that the amendment shall be valid when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within 7 years from the date of its submission by the Congress. That meant that the final deadline was March 22, 1979, almost 41 years ago. By the end of this initial deadline, only 35 of the 38 States needed had ratified it, so Congress with a simple majority vote, which is questionable, extended the deadline once to 1982, but no other States joined in ratification. Thus, the equal rights amendment was dead. It is also imperative to note that five of the 35 States rescinded their ratifications. So then the count was down to only 30 States. In fact, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a legal opinion just last month reiterating that the ERA ratification timeline is expired. Ultimately, when the 1972 ERA's deadline passed without ratification by three-fourths of the States, the proposed amendment expired and is, therefore, no longer pending. The 1972 ERA, therefore, can no longer be ratified because it no longer exists. In one of its works, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which we all turn to, states that the ERA formally died on June 30, 1982. The U.S. Supreme Court also dismissed all cases related to the ERA because it held the cases to be moot, saying that the ERA ratification date had expired. Regardless of one's view on whether or not the equal rights amendment should be adopted, the fact remains that the equal rights amendment was not ratified by the necessary 38 States by the deadline set forth in the text of the amendment itself. Just last night, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, certainly not known as a conservative, said Virginia's recent adoption of an ERA resolution was long after the deadline passed. She went on to say, ``I would like to see a new beginning. I'd like it to start over. There's too much controversy about latecomers. Virginia--long after the deadline passed. Plus, a number of States have withdrawn their ratification.'' Remember the five I talked about. ``So if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard States that said we've changed our minds?'' And deratified. In addition, the Democrats' sneaky act to slip into this resolution language that would deem that a mere majority vote instead of the two- thirds vote needed on a constitutional amendment, has significant constitutional and legal ramifications. Should my Democratic colleagues wish to proceed with seeking to add the ERA to the Constitution, the appropriate method would be to follow the procedure outlined in the Constitution: Passage by a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress, followed by ratification by three- quarters of the States. And it seems as recently as last night, Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg agrees. Secondly: The ERA amendment is not necessary. Women's equality of rights under the law is already recognized in our Constitution in the Fifth and 14th Amendments. Women do deserve fairness and equality under the law. Through established law such as Title IX, the Equality Opportunity Act of 1963, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and Equal Pay Act, plus State and local laws, women have made huge strides against institutional discrimination against women in education, employment, sports, politics, and many other aspects of society. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that both the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantee women equal protection under the law. That is why the ACLU women's rights director Lenora Lapidus wrote in response to what Ms. Scanlon brought up about Justice Scalia, ``it has been clearly understood that the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination based on sex. In decision after decision, many authored by conservative Supreme Court Justices, this principle has been reaffirmed.'' Third: If ratified, the ERA would be used by pro-abortion groups to undo pro-life legislation and lead to more abortions and taxpayer funding of abortions. Don't take my word for it. Let's look at what pro-abortion groups have done and what they are saying now. Abortion activists have already utilized State-level ERAs to require taxpayer-funded abortion. In 1998, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the State ERA required the State to fund abortions since procedures sought by men like, prostate surgery, are funded. A lawsuit in Connecticut used similar arguments and achieved the same objective, full taxpayer- funded abortion. In 2019, Planned Parenthood and Women's Law Center filed a lawsuit in Pennsylvania arguing that the Pennsylvania's ERA means abortion must be included in medical coverage for women because men aren't denied coverage for anything. In another example, NARAL Pro-Choice America--which is a pro-abortion group--in a March 13, 2019, national alert asserted that the ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion. It would require judges to strike down anti-abortion laws. Further, in a 2019 letter to the House Judiciary Committee, the ACLU stated, ``The equal rights amendment could provide an additional layer of protection against restrictions on abortion, contraception, and other forms of reproductive healthcare.'' And the pro-ERA website itself, EqualRightsAmendment.org, explicitly states that ratifying the ERA into the U.S. Constitution would ``provide a strong legal defense against a rollback of women's rights, including but not limited to Roe v. Wade.'' In conclusion, H.J. Res 79 is unconstitutional. The ERA is unnecessary since constitutional, Federal, State and local laws already guarantee equal protections, and the ERA, if ratified, would be used by pro-abortion groups to undo pro-life laws. Also included in this rule is H.R. 2546, the Protecting America's Wilderness Act. My Republican colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee have expressed concern that each of the bills in this package will remove large swaths of land in rural areas from development, threaten the economic base of these regions, and reduce the effectiveness of fire prevention plans. My Democratic colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee have continued the disappointing trend of moving bills that are not supported by the Members who represent the impacted lands. In fact, all the wilderness designations in H.R. 2546 are located outside the bill sponsor's district. Instead, most are located in Representative Scott Tipton from Colorado's district, who opposes the bill. One of the greatest concerns about this piece of legislation is that significant opposition from local counties, communities, and stakeholder groups seem to go ignored. The consensus is that these bills will negatively impact individual homeowners, agricultural entities, water providers, first responders, and the recreation tourism industry. Today, it seems what we simply have before us are examples of: Legislating in other Members' districts without their support or any attempt to collaborate. Increased risk of wildfires due to the lack of management and inability to use mechanical means to fight or prevent fire within all newly designated wilderness areas. Lack of support from local leaders and stakeholders across each of the bills in this legislation. Concerns about threats to private property rights when the vast majority of land proposed to be added to the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreational Area is nonFederal. I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LESKO

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

Mrs. LESKO

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

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend, Mr. Gianforte, for giving me the opportunity to speak about this bill. I am from Arizona, so border security has been for years and still is the number one issue that people in Arizona care about. They welcome legal immigrants, but they also want to make sure that Arizona and our Nation are secure and that illegal drug trafficking is mitigated. We used to see mostly single male adults crossing our border, and they would evade the Border Patrol officers; but, recently, however, thousands and thousands of illegal migrants are coming from Central America, and they are being coached by the cartels, who charge them $5,000 to $8,000 a person. They are saying: Let's go up there and turn yourselves in to the Border Patrol officers, because there is a loophole, and just claim asylum. And they know that, once they are in, they are in the United States and they can stay. Instead of running away from Border Patrol, they turn themselves in, claiming asylum, so our immigration courts are overloaded and legitimate asylum claims languish amidst frivolous claims. This backlog is severe. It is a nonpartisan challenge facing our immigration courts. A recent report stated that backlog cases in immigration courts exceeded 1 million claims. This backlog has rapidly increased over the last decade, and as the backlog increases, so do wait times. Sometimes, it takes years for these cases to proceed through the courts. We currently have approximately 400 immigration judges. That is about 2,500 cases per judge. This backlog strains housing facilities and prevents judges from granting asylum to legitimate asylum seekers and from swiftly removing those who have frivolous claims and are abusing the loopholes in our laws. This is a big national security and humanitarian crisis. We need efficiency in the Federal Government, especially when it comes to immigration. That is why I introduced H.R. 3859 to help reduce the immigration court backlog and help legitimate asylum seekers. This bill provides an additional 100 immigration judges to reduce the asylum backlog. Adding more judges will allow these cases to be adjudicated faster and help reduce the backlog. I thank the task force chairman, Greg Gianforte, and the Republican Study Committee chairman, Mike Johnson, for their hard work to increase efficiency and accountability in our government, especially when it comes to immigration.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote last week due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 14; NAY on Roll Call No. 16; NAY on Roll Call No. 17; NAY on Roll Call No. 18; YEA on Roll Call No. 19; YEA on Roll Call No. 20; NAY on Roll CAll No. 21; and NAY on Roll CAll No. 22.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First, I thank President Trump for making a decisive action to protect Americans. Thank you. The world now knows that Obama's appeasement strategy policies, including giving billions of dollars to Iran, are over. It didn't work. The world knows that when President Trump says we are not going to cross this red line, they know he means it. In Rules Committee last night and again today, I listened as my Democratic colleagues claim what this resolution is all about. They claim that it is about making sure Congress exerts its authority to approve future war against Iran. But that is not what this resolution does. In fact, let's read the title of this resolution. It says: ``Directing the President pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran.'' It doesn't say anything about future war. We do not currently have U.S. Armed Forces engaged in hostilities in or against Iran. If Democrats are serious about making sure Congress has its say in declaring war, they would follow the statutory guidelines as described by Representative Cole. They are already in there. Go to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Instead, Democrats have chosen to short circuit the process yet again to achieve a partisan objective. As a member of the Rules Committee, I saw the language of the resolution 45 minutes before the Rules Committee started. This is not a serious effort for such a serious subject. Here are the facts. Iran and Iranian-backed militias have escalated their attacks.

Mrs. LESKO. General Milley said the trigger for the drone strike that killed Soleimani was ``clear, unambiguous intelligence indicating a significant campaign of violence against the United States in the days, weeks, and months,'' and that the administration would have been ``culpably negligent'' if it did not act. This is a man who has been in the military for 40 years under different administrations, and you are going to doubt what he has to say? I thank President Trump for protecting American citizens.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, in June 2019, Iran shot down a U.S. drone. Trump said, no, we are not going to retaliate because no U.S. lives were lost. Iran attacked Saudi oil fields. Iran-backed militia killed a U.S. citizen and wounded four troops. Then, an Iran-backed militia attacked the U.S. Embassy. Soleimani was a terrorist designated by the Obama administration. Let me read very quickly what the Joint Chiefs of Staff have said. He has had 40 years of military experience under all different administrations.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I emphasize to my friends across the aisle that we should be bringing legislation to this floor that showcases how we can work together and how we can protect the public from scientifically proven unsafe chemicals. However, this package does not. I hope my colleagues will come to the table and work with the entire Chamber so we can do more on this important issue, so we can actually have a bill that could be signed into law, and so we can truly help Americans. If my Democratic colleagues truly want to save lives and protect the public, they will stop pushing through partisan bills like this one that they know will not be heard in the Senate and, instead, actually work with Republicans on reasonable legislation to get something done for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO

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