Debbie Lesko

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Scanlon for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 535, the bill before us today, lays out an aggressive, antiscience regulatory framework for addressing perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS, under several environmental statutes, including the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, also known as CERCLA; the Clean Air Act; and the Toxic Substances Control Act. This is an unprecedented way of conducting science, counteracting decades of U.S. environmental policy and likely compromising public safety, public health, environmental protection, and national defense efforts. This bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to designate all perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl chemical compounds as hazardous substances within 1 year of enactment of this bill. Since the enactment of CERCLA, Congress has never--let me repeat, never-- statutorily mandated a substance's designation. That designation shall be left to the regulatory process, allowing for notice, public input, and scientific review and analysis. Designation as a hazardous substance under CERCLA triggers a wide variety of notifications and response actions. For example, a release of the designated hazardous substance chemical may require the polluter to notify the entire populace in the area and/or government entities and may trigger cleanup/abatement requirements. Small communities are not going to be able to afford it. It also attaches strict and retroactive liability without a liability shield for innocent parties that acted according to the law. Not only does this bill mandate the designation of the entire class of PFAS chemicals as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, but it also designates the entire PFAS class under CERCLA. That kind of designation under CERCLA, coupled with the other features of this bill, would amount to a de facto ban of all PFAS, including the many lifesaving products that incorporate PFAS. However, I don't hear my Democratic colleagues here talking about the PFAS chemicals that are helping people. For instance, the type of PFAS used in the device in this poster next to me is made by Gore of Gore- Tex fame. The device plugs a hole in a baby's heart. Again, these devices help save the lives of babies born with holes in their hearts. If EPA is forced to designate the entire class of PFAS as hazardous material, think about how many parents will have to think twice and may suddenly feel conflicted in giving their babies lifesaving surgery using devices like this or similar medical devices. We cannot classify an entire class as hazardous when, in fact, there are only some bad actors. Gore's medical products division is centered in Flagstaff, Arizona. I represent Arizona, and they have a campus in north Phoenix, which is in my district. This campus has about 700 employees making medical products. As a whole, Gore has approximately 2,300 employees in Arizona engaged in the research, development, and manufacturing of medical devices. I had the opportunity to tour Gore and its medical products division, where I got to see firsthand the creative, innovative, and technology- driven solutions they are cultivating to help cure medical conditions for Americans. These are FDA- and scientifically approved medical devices, yet this bill threatens them and threatens the American people. However, H.R. 535, as amended, mandates multiple aggressive actions based on a woefully incomplete scientific understanding of health effects for this diverse class of more than 5,000 chemical compounds. We know that PFAS are chemicals used in numerous consumer products and industrial processes. They are resistant to heat, oils, stains, grease, and water. Those properties make them important to many products and processes in commerce, such as firefighting foam, cellphones, medical devices, Kevlar, semiconductors, solar panels, and chlorine, and even in our own Department of Defense, including F-16s. I have Luke Air Force Base in my district. They have trained F-16 pilots for years. Now, they are switching over the F-35s, but they still train F-16s. This is important to our national defense. The class of PFAS chemicals numbers more than 5,000. Of those, only about 29 have developed scientific data and methods. That is 29 out of 5,000. PFAS are a diverse family of chemicals, which includes a broad range of substances with different physical, chemical, and toxicological properties and uses. Hence, the hazard and risk profile of various PFAS are very different. It is neither scientifically accurate nor appropriate to group all PFAS together or take a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach for this wide range of substances. We all want to ensure American citizens are not exposed to dangerous chemicals. We want to do it sooner rather than later. However, my Republican colleagues on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and many integral stakeholders have grave doubts that the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly, known as CERCLA, is the magic bullet for this problem. In fact, it may create more problems than meet the eye. This is why numerous letters have been sent to Members of Congress from relevant stakeholders to urge Congress to oppose provisions that would circumvent existing, well-established regulatory processes, predetermine outcomes using inadequate scientific data, and potentially inhibit effective cleanup of those PFAS that are of the greatest concern. Some of these stakeholders, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Airlines for America, Airports Council International--North America, American Chemistry Council, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of Manufacturers, and more, are the folks dealing with the repercussions of what we do here in this Chamber. They are the ones representing hundreds of thousands of jobs in all 50 States; yet, here we are telling the people who deal with these issues daily that, no, we don't care what they think. We are going to move ahead with a partisan and controversial alternative. We will cost thousands of Americans their jobs in a rush process instead of working together to do something meaningful. The bill before us today creates an unrealistic condition that EPA must require manufacturers and processors to test each chemical in the entire PFAS class. This testing requirement applies to each of the 5,000 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a task that will be enormously expensive and time consuming. I agree, we need to prevent environmental contamination by these substances. That is why we have. We have recently made huge steps and taken big actions. Just last month, we passed the fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Act and various spending bills, where several PFAS provisions were enacted into law. The laws we passed together on a bipartisan basis will start making a difference in communities immediately. They required substantial reporting and public disclosures, created grants for drinking water treatment, authorized PFAS research and detection programs, phased out PFAS in firefighting foam used by the Department of Defense, and required cooperative cleanup agreements between the Department of Defense and States for Department of Defense facilities with PFAS contamination. The bill signed into law reflected a bicameral compromise and omitted language from the House's version, H.R. 2500, that would have required the EPA to designate PFAS as hazardous substances. We need, here, a consistent and credible approach to regulating these chemicals that leverages existing frameworks to access the potential risks associated with PFAS. Our actions should be based on existing administrative procedures and sound science. However, last night, when we were reviewing this bill in the Rules Committee, of which I am a member, I heard numerous times from my Democratic colleagues that they do not trust the EPA, that they do not trust their workforce, apparently. This baffles me. In fiscal year 2019, the EPA employed 14,172 individuals. These thousands of individuals go to work each and every day to work for EPA's mission. The mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment. EPA has developed a PFAS Action Plan to address PFAS issues across multiple environmental mediums. As part of the plan, the Agency, among other things, has issued interim recommendations for addressing groundwater contaminated with PFOA and PFOS under Federal cleanup programs, sent to the Office of Management and Budget for interagency review a proposed drinking water regulatory determination for PFOA and PFOS, and is working through the regulatory development process for listing the PFOA and PFOS as ``hazardous substances'' under CERCLA. Clearly, action is happening. However, we need to be working together more. To quote the National Association of Manufacturers: ``Congressional action should enable and encourage the appropriate agencies to carry out the risk-based approach established in existing U.S. environmental law and policy. Congress should prioritize the cleanup of contaminated sites to protect communities. Congress should also provide oversight to ensure a coordinated and timely government response and appropriate the funding necessary to support sound scientific research and the management, mitigation, and ongoing monitoring of specific PFAS''--not all PFAS. However, this bill cannot pass the Senate and cannot become law--and my Democratic colleagues know that--while the bipartisan Senate-passed language, as included in the Senate version of the NDAA, could be signed into law. The Republican-supported substitute amendment that was introduced in committee markup consisted of the Senate-passed language on PFAS. It would still require the EPA to issue regulations covering PFAS, require the EPA to issue drinking water regulations covering PFAS, and require the EPA to use appropriate science in issuing these regulations. It would eliminate the CERCLA/Superfund provisions contained in this bill because the Senate will not pass them. Why can we not pass something that could help improve countless lives and that we know that the Senate will take on and pass? We should be promoting a consistent, comprehensive approach for assessing and regulating specific PFAS that takes into account existing regulatory frameworks. If Congress acts in this area, it should utilize these frameworks to ensure consistent, science-based regulatory approaches, transparency, broad stakeholder input, and enforceable regulations. That is the way we can get something meaningfully passed through both Chambers and signed into law. We need to pass a bill that would encourage innovation and production of new chemicals to replace existing chemicals in commerce, not disincentivize it, which this bill does. We need to ensure our constituents are not exposed to dangerous chemicals. We need to do our constitutional role in overseeing Federal agencies; however, we should not be doing so in a way that would make regulation impractical, eliminate the use of medical-saving devices, or tie the hands of the Department of Defense. So let's work together. Let's make some progress that could actually pass both Chambers. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Illinois an additional 2 minutes.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to consider an amendment offered by my colleague, Representative Shimkus, that was not made in order. The alternative could actually pass the Senate and could, therefore, become law and help people. Isn't that our goal? Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, this amendment strikes section 2 through section 18 of the bill and replaces it with a provision mandating the cleanup of PFOA and PFOS contamination at Department of Defense facilities, section 2, and a provision mandating that EPA establish national primary drinking water regulations for PFOA and PFOS within 2 years, as well as expedite the setting of such regulations for other PFAS chemicals, section 3. H.R. 535 requires aggressive regulatory responses to the diverse class of PFAS chemicals with little regard to science or risk assessment. This is an unprecedented way of conducting science, counteracting decades of U.S. environmental policy, and likely compromising public safety, public health, and environmental protection. This alternative that I am proposing simply takes away some of the more problematic provisions and gives H.R. 535 a plausible way to passage. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, most people would think that the most surprising bill to me that we voted on this year was the Articles of Impeachment. Really, that wasn't a surprise to me because I serve on the Judiciary Committee, and since January, we have been doing investigations of President Trump. Many Republicans and I predicted all along that the majority, the Democrats in this House, were going to vote to impeach the President, so it really wasn't a surprise to me. But this bill really surprises me, and let me tell you why. My goodness, I have served in the Arizona House of Representatives for 6 years and another 3 years in the Arizona Senate. For years, every time the Republican majority would cut taxes so that it would boom the economy and help everyone, my Democratic colleagues then said: ``Oh, my gosh, those Republicans, they are just helping the rich. They are just helping the rich. They don't care about the little guy. They don't care about the middle class.'' The same thing is said for years now, years and years, by my Democratic colleagues and others that: ``Oh, those Republicans, they just care about the rich.'' Oh, baloney. The tax cut Republicans did in 2017, you can see the effect of those tax cuts. The economy is booming. There are more job openings than there are jobs to fill them. This bill is an interesting bill because, in the 2017 tax cut bill that the Republicans put through, it said--you know what--States that are fiscally responsible, that don't have exorbitant property taxes, those constituents in my State of Arizona-- What did you say, sir? Did you say I was wacko? Oh, thank you, sir. Mr. Speaker, people in Arizona, we are responsible taxpayers. We don't have exorbitant property taxes. I know people who live in New Jersey, and I know how they complain how their property taxes are so incredibly high. The people in Arizona are fiscally responsible, and that is why people are flocking to our State and other States with low taxes. People in Arizona and other States that are fiscally responsible, they don't want to subsidize the irresponsible States that have high taxes by giving them huge deductions on their Federal taxes. So, in the Republican tax bill, we capped the deduction at $10,000. It seems reasonable to me. In fact, the gentleman from New Jersey, I think, just said, recently, the average deduction is $9,000. Well, that is below $10,000. That is below the $10,000 cap, so they can deduct it. But here in this bill today, Democrats want to raise the cap to $20,000 and then totally eliminate it in the next 2 years. When the Republicans put forward amendments, one of the amendments said let's not give this tax break to the top 10 percent of income earners. Democrats rejected it. Then Republicans had another amendment that said, well, let's not give this big tax break to the top 1 percent income earners. The Democrats rejected it. So, please, the next time my Democratic colleagues, and Democrats throughout the Nation, when they say it is the Republicans who are always for the rich people, let's look at this bill, because the proof is here. No, it is the Democrats.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, as you all know, I serve on both the Judiciary Committee and Rules Committee, and I have literally spent hours--hours--poring over testimony, looking at documents, sitting in hearings. And do you know the conclusion I got from all of that? This impeachment is a total joke and a total sham. And let me tell you one of the reasons why I think that. All of those witnesses, the 17 witnesses that the Democrats brought forward, not one single one of them was able to establish that President Trump committed bribery, treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors, which is required in the U.S. Constitution. And, again, 17 out of 24 Democrat Members on the Judiciary Committee voted on this floor to move forward Articles of Impeachment before the phone call, and five out of nine Rules Committee Democrat Members did the same thing. So, if the main part of your impeachment is the call, why did you vote for impeachment prior to the call? I also want to remind the American public and others that, for 2 years, Adam Schiff claimed he had proof--proof--that President Trump had colluded with Russia. That turned out to be false. And then, overnight, it was obstruction of justice, then quid pro quo, then bribery, then extortion, and the list goes on; yet, not one of those is listed in the Articles of Impeachment. To my Democrat colleagues, Madam Speaker, I say: Please stop tearing the country apart. Stop this sham.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Cole for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, God takes us on journeys in our life, and about 30 years ago I was married to an abusive ex-husband. When I finally left him, there were times in my life when I had no money and no place to live. And I tell you what, I never dreamed in a million years that I would be standing here today as a Congresswoman in the United States House of Representatives. And I tell you what, I never would have believed that I would be standing here talking about impeachment of a President of the United States. I serve on the Judiciary Committee. I also serve on the Rules Committee. I have spent hours and hours reading transcripts, looking at documents, hearing testimony, and I can tell you one thing: I believe this is the most unfair, politically biased, rigged process that I have seen in my entire life. Here are the facts: There is no proof, none, that the President has committed an impeachable offense. Not one of the Democrat witnesses was able to establish that the President committed bribery, treason, or high crimes and misdemeanors as required in the U.S. Constitution. And as I have said before, the Democrats are really undermining their own argument here because 17 out of the 24 Democrat members on the Judiciary Committee voted here on this floor to put forward, move forward Articles of Impeachment on July 17 of this year before President Trump's call even took place. And five out of the nine Rules Committee members that are Democrats did the same thing. So if your argument is that this phone call is the main reason for this impeachable offense, why did you vote for impeachment, moving impeachment forward before the call even took place? The process has been rigged from the start. Other Members have told you. Never in the history of the United States have we had an impeachment that has gone through the Intelligence Committee in closed- door hearings where a Member of the Judiciary Committee, myself, wasn't even able to ask one single question of a fact witness. The whole thing has been rigged, been unfair. In the process that you had set forth you made sure that the President didn't have any right to have his counsel there until Judiciary, but by then it was too late. It was too late because there were no fact witnesses allowed in Judiciary. So I couldn't even ask a question, nor could the President. This is the most partisan impeachment in the history of the United States. Not one Republican voted for it in the Judiciary Committee, not one Republican voted for it in the Rules Committee, and not one Republican, I don't think, is going to vote for it here today. Madam Speaker, this is a sad day. I believe the Democrats are tearing this country apart. They are tearing families apart. May God continue to bless all of you. May God continue to bless the President of the United States. And may God continue to bless our great Nation.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my friend Mr. Morelle, Washington, D.C., does not have a beach on the ocean. Virginia does. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to consider H. Res. 750, which expresses the sense of the House that it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect and promote individual choice and health insurance for the American people and prevent any Medicare for All proposal that would outlaw private health insurance plans, such as employer-based coverage and Medicare Advantage plans. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I hear from my constituents regularly--and I have a lot of senior citizens--that they are afraid of a Medicare for All approach. They understand that a one-size-fits-all, government-run healthcare system will not work. That is because whether it is called a single- payer system or a socialist system, Medicare for All constitutes a complete government takeover of healthcare in America. Medicare for All will end, eliminate, private health insurance plans. It will eliminate the current Medicare. It will eliminate all Medicare Advantage plans like my mother is on, and replace it, instead, with a one-size-fits-all, government-controlled healthcare plan. Just like ObamaCare, even if you like your plan, you will not be able to keep it. Passage of Medicare for All would push over 150 million Americans off their health insurance plans and into government health insurance plans. Further, while no version of Medicare for All has yet received a budget score, Senator Bernie Sanders' version of Medicare for All did receive estimated scores from two outside groups. In 2016, the Urban Institute calculated that Senator Sanders' healthcare proposals would increase Federal funding by a whopping $32.6 trillion over 10 years. Separately, in June 2018, the Mercatus Center estimated that Medicare for All would increase Federal spending by $32 trillion over 10 years. Our national debt is a national security crisis, and we must work together to combat it, not increase costs. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers. However, I do want to say that I believe that the amendment, if the previous question is defeated, is germane because it applies to the rule and not to the bill itself. In closing, I want to emphasize to my friends across the aisle that we should be bringing legislation to this floor that showcases how we can work together. However, this package ultimately highlights the real opportunity cost of impeachment. The Democrats have rallied for months now and promised real, sweeping policies to address what they call the climate crisis. However, they have been so consumed with attacking our President and impeachment that they have nothing to show for it. In an attempt to satisfy their base that they are doing something about climate change, they are, instead, in this package, just repeating things already being done, but it is at a higher cost. 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. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Morelle for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this week, Democrats have scheduled a series of bills on the House floor in the name of combating climate change that are actually retreads of the programs that are already authorized and actions that are already being taken by the Federal Government. H.R. 729 is clear proof that the Democrats have no agency and have no priorities other than to impeach the President of the United States. Most of the bills included in this package duplicate existing authority that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife already have. Most authorizations of appropriations in the bill package are, therefore, unnecessary and are higher than current levels being spent. NOAA, the agency that would be responsible for carrying out most of this legislation, stated in testimony that it can do and is doing most all of these functions under current law. This package also creates a precedent of having a city, Washington, D.C., and a non-coastal one at that, as participating in the Coastal Zone Management Act. There is a real threat that this would give D.C. veto power over Federal actions affecting its coastal zone once it develops an approved coastal zone management program. The loan guarantee program under the Working Waterfront program, section 104, is problematic, because the American taxpayer will be on the hook for any default. The National Sea Grant program is popular amongst coastal members, but the bill makes mandatory a fellowship program that provides free graduate students to congressional offices at taxpayer expense. Mr. Speaker, I have concerns about the bills included in this package. For example, this land package addresses changes to the Coastal Zone Management Act. The act signed by President Nixon into law in 1972 provides Federal funds to States to develop plans to preserve, protect, and develop the resources of our Nation's coastal zones. This bill that we are debating today contains text from H.R. 2185, which would allow Washington, D.C., to receive Federal funding to develop and implement a coastal zone management plan of their own. This is an odd way to appropriate Federal funds, as the District of Columbia does not have a coast. Rather, Washington, D.C., borders the Potomac River, which eventually feeds into the Chesapeake Bay, which merges into the Atlantic Ocean. The inclusion of Washington, D.C., in the Coastal Zone Management Act would no doubt reduce the funding for existing participants. It also raises the question of whether States that contain rivers that lead into the ocean, such as Arkansas with the Mississippi River or my home State of Arizona with the Colorado River, should get Federal funding to create a coastal management plan. This is a dangerous precedent to create and a poor use of precious resources. This package also authorizes funds to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to perform tasks that they already do. For example, this package contains text from H.R. 2189, which would authorize NOAA to conduct the Digital Coast program. This program supplies coastal communities and researchers with up-to-date mapping information to address coastal issues, such as storm preparation, flood management, ecosystem restoration, and coastal development. It should be noted that NOAA has already been conducting this program under the line item of Ocean and Coastal Management and Services since 2007. In other words, this bill would require Federal agencies to carry out duties that they have already been doing. Like I said earlier, this is really not a great use of the public's time on the House floor. Another example of this package directing Federal agencies to perform tasks that they have already been doing can be seen in the text that is drawn from H.R. 3541. This legislation would establish a coastal climate change adaption preparedness and response program to assist States in developing plans to minimize negative consequences of climate change and implementation of those plans. NOAA, through the Coastal Zone Management Act, already funds State programs relating to climate change and has already been providing assistance to States that H.R. 3541 wants the agency to do. H.R. 2189 and H.R. 3541 are just two of many examples in this bill that duplicate existing authority that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration already has under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Further, the cost of this land package to the American taxpayer is immense. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the cumulative cost of this package would cost as much as $1.4 billion more than what is already being spent over the authorized periods. Even worse, these bills have the potential for an additional cost of $292 million outside of the bill's authorized windows if certain conditions are met. With over $22 trillion in debt, we should not be moving bills that are duplicative, repetitive, and unnecessarily expensive. We need to be responsible with the hardworking taxpayers' money. Why can't we discuss land packages that have more bipartisan support and do not cost a fortune to the taxpayer? Back in February 2019, we all voted on S. 47, the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act. The bill received overwhelming support from Republicans and Democrats in both Chambers and was signed into law by President Trump. This bipartisan legislation permanently reauthorized the Land and Water Conservation Fund and protected hunting and fishing rights while also reforming various aspects of the Federal lands governance system. The CBO estimated that S. 47 would decrease direct Federal spending by $9 million over a 10-year period. I believe that effectively balancing conservation practices, resource development, and recreation, along with saving taxpayer dollars, is very important. This land package that we are currently debating today does not even come close to the success that this House had experienced with S. 47. Ultimately, this package highlights the real opportunity cost of impeachment. The Democrats have rallied and promised real, sweeping policies to address what they call the climate crisis. However, they have been so consumed with attacking our President and with impeachment that they have nothing to show for it. This bill is nothing more than an attempt by the majority to portray themselves as doing something, anything, for the American people, when, in fact, this bill underscores the truth: They have and are doing nothing. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO

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

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank Representative Raskin for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Madam Speaker, the right to vote is of paramount importance in our Republic. We all agree on that. Prohibitions against discriminatory barriers to the right to vote have been grounded in Federal law since the Civil War and, more recently, through the Voting Rights Act of 1965. We all agree: Discrimination should have no place in our voting system. However, the majority would have us believe that the Voting Rights Act does not prevent any of this and would rather pass this partisan legislation for a Federal takeover of elections. I anticipate that the 2013 Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder will be brought up many times today, but I would like to point out to my Democratic colleagues that, in that decision, the Supreme Court only struck down one outdated provision of the Voting Rights Act. This provision, section 4(b), was struck down because it was outdated as it had not been updated since 1975, and it violated principles of equal State sovereignty and federalism. H.R. 4 is, quite simply, unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court had held that Federal control over local elections is allowed only when there is proof of discriminatory treatment in voting. Further, I believe it is important to point out that other very important provisions of the Voting Rights Act remain in place, including section 2 and section 3. Section 2 applies nationwide and prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or the ability to speak English. Section 2 is enforced through Federal lawsuits just like every other Federal civil rights law, and the United States and civil rights organizations have brought many cases to enforce the guarantees of section 2 in court, and they may do so in the future, as well. Section 3 of the Voting Rights Act also remains in place. This section authorizes Federal courts to impose preclearance requirements on States and political subdivisions that have enacted voting procedures that treat people differently based on race in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments. If a Federal court finds a State or a political subdivision to have treated people differently based on race, then the court has discretion now to retain supervisory jurisdiction and impose preclearance requirements as they see fit until a future date at the court's discretion. This is all valid now without this bill. Section 3 has been utilized recently, in fact. U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal issued an opinion in a redistricting case that required that the city of Pasadena, Texas, be monitored by the Justice Department because it had intentionally changed its city council districts to decrease Hispanic influence. States should be allowed to implement their own laws regarding their elections and voting security to ensure all results are accurate on election day. State and local governments know more about how to handle their elections than bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. I applaud State and local governments that are taking the necessary steps to modernize and secure their elections. For example, in Arizona, my home State, we have made continual progress on improving voter turnout and participation. Mr. Raskin said that the section that was taken out by the courts was genius. Well, I believe the opposite is true. Arizona was under this outdated preclearance formula, and I can tell you personally that this section was not genius. Both Arizona Democrats and Republicans, alike, thought to have to preclear every single decision that elected election officials made with the Federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., was a total disaster. Arizona now has free, open, and secure elections, despite not being under this Federal control preclearance anymore. Nearly 80 percent of Arizonans vote by mail. We have a robust online voter registration system, so it is easy to register to vote. We have approximately 1 month of early voting. While Arizona has made voting easier and more accessible for voters, we have also made our elections more secure by outlining the practice of ballot harvesting. In Arizona, we believe it should be easy to vote and hard to cheat. The policies in Arizona seem to be working, as we have seen in election after election that voter turnout continues to grow. A couple months ago, I had the opportunity to participate in a field hearing in Phoenix, Arizona, to discuss the Voting Rights Act. There, I spoke with staff of the Maricopa County Recorder, an elected Democrat. She relayed to me how disappointed they were to not have been asked to testify at this hearing as they felt that they had not been able to speak to the story of the successes in Arizona and why they were very concerned about H.R. 4. They did not want the Federal Government preclearing every single decision they made. Think about it: They don't want to have to go back to the Federal Government every single time they change early ballots or voting locations. They, instead, are making great progress and strides. Voter turnout has soared. They don't want bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., slowing down important and time-sensitive decisions. This rule also includes H. Res. 326. I am curious why my Democratic colleagues decided to bring forward this nonbinding resolution as opposed to bringing up H.R. 336, a bill that I am personally a proud cosponsor of, which is identical to the text of S. 1, the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act of 2019, which passed the Senate by a vote of 77-23--totally bipartisan--on February 5, 2019. Instead of the nonbinding resolution we have before us today, H.R. 336 would take concrete steps to counter the BDS movement against Israel. Instead, I am saddened the Democrats brought up this resolution, a resolution that rebukes and ties the hands of the Trump administration and embarrasses Israel. In fact, the resolution expressly states a proposal must be put forward that is consistent with previous administrations' proposals, completely undercutting the Trump administration. This should not be a partisan issue with only Democrat sponsors and not one Republic cosponsor as this bill has. We should not be handicapping our President. My Republican colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee tell me that a resolution that supports a two-state solution, without attempting to undermine the President, could have been bipartisan. However, this resolution singles out settlement expansion and annexation. These are some of the most delicate issues in our bilateral relationship with Israel, and it shines a spotlight on them in the middle of an ongoing and contentious time in Israel. The resolution spells out specific Palestinian Authority demands without listing critical Israeli preconditions, such as acknowledging Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state with an undivided Jerusalem as Israel's capital and providing assurances for Israel's safety and security through a demilitarized zone. As a whole, this resolution disproportionately criticizes the Israeli Government while failing to recognize the dangerous actions targeting innocent Israelis that further remove the possibility of peace. We already voted to support a two-state solution over the summer in H. Res. 246 in a bipartisan manner. So why do we need this partisan bill? So, Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Zeldin), my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If we defeat the previous question, I will bring to the floor H.R. 2207, the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2019, which most people know as the bill that will eliminate the medical device tax. 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, H.R. 2207 was introduced by Mr. Kind from Wisconsin, and it has 253 bipartisan cosponsors, including myself. Since the medical device tax was imposed by the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as ObamaCare, folks have known that it was detrimental to innovation and to patient access to necessary devices and treatments. The 2.3 percent excise tax has been suspended twice because we know it is bad policy. So what are we waiting for? Madam Speaker, we should be bringing legislation to this floor that showcases how we can work together. The American people need to see us united on issues as important as this. We need to stand together when opportunities like these arise to better the lives and truly help all of our constituencies. H.R. 2207 does just that. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, in closing, H.R. 4 is totally partisan, without one Republican cosponsor; and H. Res. 326, another totally partisan bill, ties the Trump administration's hands and embarrasses Israel. Madam Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO

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

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Cole for yielding. This impeachment process is a total sham. This resolution, which seeks to legitimize it, misleads the American public. Section 2 of this bill is titled, ``The Open and Transparent Investigative Proceedings by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence,'' but the process set forth in this resolution is far from open and far from transparent. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The resolution continues the closed-door meetings that blocks entry to Members of Congress and prohibits the President's due process rights. And it merely authorizes, but does not require, Chairman Schiff to make transcripts public. Last night Republicans offered 17 amendments to add some fairness into the process, but Democrats rejected them all. I had an amendment to ensure minority witnesses could call an equal number of witnesses as the majority. Democrats said no. I had an amendment to require the Intel chairman to turn over exculpatory materials to the Judiciary Committee. Democrats shot it down. I had an amendment to give ranking members the same authority as the chairman to submit materials to the Judiciary Committee. Democrats rejected that, too. The process set forth by this resolution violates basic standards of fairness. I urge opposition to this resolution.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise in observance of Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Over 25 years ago, I was in an abusive relationship with my ex- husband. I became a single mother to a young daughter, working just to survive day to day. I never dreamed in a million years that I would be standing here before you today as a Member of Congress, speaking on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. But I not only survived, I thrived. I share my story in hopes of helping others. I hope they find strength in our efforts to acknowledge their suffering and recognize the many organizations that exist to help them today.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the text of my amendment, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.