Debbie Lesko

Mrs. LESKO

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

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Shalala for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, energy and mining are critical drivers of the American economy and quality of life. These industries create thousands of well- paying jobs. The United States cannot reach or sustain our potential without developing our natural resources. But, today, we are debating three bills that put American energy, American quality of life, and American national security at risk. It seems just yesterday that I was here at this very same podium speaking much of these same words. In fact, it was just last month. At that time, I spoke out against bills banning offshore drilling. Now this majority wants to pass sweeping bans on even more domestic natural resources. This time they want to ban American energy from Colorado, New Mexico, and my home State of Arizona. As I said last month, they want to ban it all; and American families, including Arizona families, will pay the price. H.R. 823 withdraws areas in Colorado from mineral development. This bill particularly impacts its Third Congressional District, represented by Congressman Scott Tipton. Sixty-five percent of the lands affected by this bill are in his district, yet, this bill does not have his support, nor the support of any of the Republican members of the Colorado delegation. Similarly, H.R. 2181 withdraws Federal lands in New Mexico from resource development. It also terminates all non-producing oil and gas leases on those lands. Finally, H.R. 1373, I believe, is a misleadingly-titled land grab that deals with land far outside the Grand Canyon. I believe it is deeply misguided. Arizona currently produces $6.6 billion in nonfuel minerals, which makes it the second largest State in the production of minerals in the United States. Yet, this bill would permanently lock up about 1 million acres of public lands in Arizona, hampering the economic potential of my State. The area impacted by this bill also contains the largest tract of uranium deposits in the country. Restricting access to these deposits puts our national security at risk because we have to rely on foreign countries to provide us uranium. It is also important to note that much of the lands affected by this bill are in Arizona's Fourth Congressional District, represented by my good friend, Congressman Gosar. Yet, Mr. Gosar has expressed very clear opposition to this bill. These three bills ignore the economic benefits of domestic energy production. Energy development brings high-paying jobs, facilitates manufacturing and investment, and provides government revenues. Energy development in the United States also makes energy more affordable for everyone. The average salary paid in the natural gas and oil development fields is $113,000 a year; and the energy industry supports 300,000 jobs. Domestic oil production has allowed Americans to spend 28 percent less in fuel, resulting in nearly $1,000 in savings per family in 2017 alone. To my constituents, that is a lot of money. I believe in an all-of-the-above energy approach. In my home State of Arizona, this is a reality and a necessity. We have to rely on multiple and diverse energy sources to ensure affordable and reliable energy. I support nuclear, hydroelectric, coal, sun, wind, and other alternative sources, and I also support domestic oil and natural gas production. An all-of-the-above approach, like that in Arizona, would benefit American families and their quality of life. In contrast, the bans that the Democrats propose would harm the U.S. economy, threaten our national security, and increase energy prices and rates on consumers. I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, this resolution would affirm that States should maintain primacy for the regulation of hydraulic fracturing and prevent any President from imposing a ban on hydraulic fracturing. In recent weeks, 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 extreme environmentalists and 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. American households and businesses have benefited significantly from the shale gas revolution. After the introduction of hydraulic fracturing techniques, U.S. gas bills fell by $13 billion collectively every year from 2007-2013. All the while, natural gas production using fracking is driving emissions reductions, resulting in the lowest emission levels in a generation. In fact, methane emissions have decreased 15 percent since 1990 as natural gas production increased over 50 percent. Thanks to hydraulic fracturing, 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 since 1992, and per capita emissions reached the lowest level since 1950. Also, banning domestic oil and gas production will return the U.S. to a time when we relied on foreign countries for oil and gas. Remember the 1970s? We do not want to put our country in a national security risk. Mr. Speaker, in closing, the bills before us today are harmful to American jobs, American quality of life, and American security. The message underlying these bills is the false notion that domestic energy production is harmful. I cannot disagree more. Domestic energy production creates hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs, lowers electricity bills, and prevents us from being dependent on foreign actors. Utilizing America's natural resources is a commonsense step for America's energy future. America must be able to utilize its natural resources for our economy and for our national security. We should encourage an expansion of domestic energy production, but, instead, my Democrat colleagues in the majority seek to limit them. 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

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

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, Madam Speaker, I will support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. While this is not the most expeditious manner to get this vital program reauthorized, it is the one that our Democratic majority has put before us. I am not in the habit of holding rape victims and survivors hostage to play political games, and it really deeply saddens me that it appears that our majority may be doing this. We had the opportunity to pass the Senate bill, and it has been sitting here for 5 months. We had the opportunity to show rape victims and survivors that we care about their plight. We had the opportunity to send the Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act of 2019 to the President's desk today. Instead, our majority has decided to squander these opportunities. It was bad enough that the Democratic majority allowed this authorization to elapse last month. It is even worse that we are placing this reauthorization into the realm of uncertainty. There is no timetable or guarantee that the Senate will act on this bill. The one thing we know is that if we were voting on the Senate bill, it would pass today. It could have been signed by the President immediately. Unfortunately, we are now only marginally better off than we were this morning with regards to this reauthorization. In the rush to impeach our President, our majority appears to have forgotten what we were sent here to do. Despite the petty motives sometimes of our majority, I will vote for the bill before us today and show support for the victims and survivors of rape. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I don't think that anybody said that we have to do exactly what the Senate asks all the time, but it does make sense that, if a Senate bill has been sitting here for 5 months and it extends it, what we are doing in the House bill, plus it has accountability measures, that it would get done sooner and it would get signed into law sooner, and then the States and the local law enforcement would have the money sooner to get rid of the backlog of the rape kits. That is all we are saying. So I don't understand the reason we are just not doing that bill, except maybe that they want an H.R. name, some House Member's name on it instead of a Senate Member's name on it. That is all I can think of. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), my friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from North Dakota an additional 30 seconds.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), my friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, the chairman said he wanted to remind me and others that the Debbie Smith Act was included in the VAWA Act that was passed out of the House. You didn't have to remind me. Unfortunately, as he knows and others know, the VAWA Act was loaded with liberal poison pills knowing that Republicans wouldn't vote for it, and it was a political act. And so, to me, it was a political act to also include it in the VAWA bill, knowing the VAWA bill was so controversial and it wouldn't be heard in the Senate. So, in fact, never in the history of the Violence Against Women Act has the Debbie Smith Act been included in that bill. And, in fact, I have been told that Debbie Smith herself did not want it included in the Violence Against Women Act, because she knew it was controversial. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline).

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner), my friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I was actually on the Arizona task force to look into Arizona's backlog on these rape kits, and so it is something that I am very passionate about doing. I am pleased that after months of inaction and after the authorization for the program had already expired, my colleagues in the majority have finally brought a Debbie Smith reauthorization bill to the House floor. Unfortunately, I think it is the wrong one. Senator Cornyn's bill, S. 820, passed the Senate in May by unanimous consent. It has been sitting here in the House waiting to be acted upon for more than 5 months. But my colleagues have been too busy chasing impeachment conspiracies to notice or care. I offered an amendment right here at this desk previously on the floor to move forward the Debbie Smith Act, but the Democrats voted it down at that time. The program expired at the end of September without so much as a glance from my fellow Democratic colleagues. Finally, House Republicans had to file a discharge petition to force consideration of this important legislation. Let me repeat that, Madam Speaker. Democrats were too busy on their crusade against the duly-elected President to engage in their efforts to nullify the will and vote of the American people to take up and pass a bipartisan bill to help rape survivors and victims and law enforcement. Even today, all we are doing is ensuring there will be more delay in the reauthorization of this vital program. That is because rather than pass the bipartisan bill the Senate passed 5 months ago, the majority is bringing an alternative bill to the floor. In the ultimate act of hubris and partisanship, the majority is insisting that this body pass a bill with an H.R. number instead of the Senate bill that has sat idle here for 5 months. What would happen if we passed the Senate bill? It would go immediately 16 blocks down Pennsylvania Avenue and be signed by the President today. Instead, unfortunately, the majority is engaging, I believe, in a game of political brinksmanship and holding their authorization of these precious grant dollars hostage, grant dollars that provide closure and solace to countless survivors of rape and the family members of victims of rape. The majority's actions are putting an unnecessary delay in getting this program reauthorized. And for what reason? I can't think of a single good reason. Perhaps someone on the other side of the aisle can provide one. Is that what they want? They want the credit for the bill, a House bill instead of a Senate bill? As Debbie Smith herself was recently quoted, ``Don't punish the victims.'' Not acting on the Senate bill is doing just that. Madam Speaker, I will support this bill today. I believe these programs and the survivors they serve are too critical to be the subject of partisan games. I am disappointed, however, that my colleagues do not feel the same way, otherwise they would put forward the Senate bill. I expect and hope we will be back on this floor in the very near future to pass a bill to actually authorize this vital program. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Chair, I agree that it is wrong if somebody pulls out false information about an election, like the date or time, but I certainly don't agree that the United States Attorney General should get involved in local elections. On this bill and other bills, I think there is a fundamental difference between the way some of my Democratic colleagues believe and what fellow Republicans and I believe. They believe the U.S. Government should know everything and should do everything. I think local control is better, that they know better what is going on. Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 4617, which would strike from the bill a section that gives the U.S. Attorney General unprecedented power to involve him or herself in State and local elections. This should be a concern for all Americans as it says Washington knows best when it comes to our local elections. Not only does this section represent a massive Federal overreach, it is also vague. For example, the section requires the Attorney General to determine whether State and local election officials have taken ``adequate steps'' to communicate information to address misinformation. What are adequate steps? It doesn't say. What is misinformation? This bill turns the United States Attorney General into a fact-checker. This section also requires the Attorney General to communicate to the public ``by any means'' to address misinformation. Taken together, this language would grant the United States Attorney General power without guardrails and we, as Congress, should find this concerning. In addition to the troublesome substance of this section, it also arrived on the floor through a deficient process. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have an interest in ensuring legislation under my committee's jurisdiction is considered in the Judiciary Committee. This did not happen here. Despite the request from Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Collins, this section of the legislation was not afforded the opportunity of a markup by the Judiciary Committee, despite it having jurisdiction. In fact, this is at least the fourth piece of legislation this year that Ranking Member Collins requested to markup but was denied an opportunity by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Because this section is a Federal intrusion into State and local elections and came to the floor through a deficient process, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to strike this section, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Georgia for yielding me the time to speak on this critical issue for my district, for the State of Arizona, and for the country. First, before I get into the previous question amendment, I would like to note that, on the underlying bill, the ACLU, the Due Process Institute, and FreedomWorks all oppose the underlying bill because of civil rights protections they are worried about being lost. I represent Arizona's Eighth Congressional District, and I regularly speak to my constituents. My district overwhelmingly opposes impeachment. They believe it is a waste of time. They believe that Congress should be tackling real issues, and I believe many Americans across the country feel the same way. They are like, what is Congress doing? Why don't you get anything done? But Democrats have chosen to ignore the people they came to Congress to represent. They chose, instead, to prioritize impeachment. Instead of advancing legislation to make our Nation safer or to better the lives of our families, my Democratic colleagues have perpetuated a witch hunt to undo the 2016 election and to influence the 2020 election. One of the key legislative items that my Democratic colleagues have sacrificed is the USMCA, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. I have met with numerous Arizona businesses that have told me, over and over and over again, the importance of the USMCA. I have told them that I support it. I have told them I want this to pass in Congress. But as we all know, it hasn't moved. It hasn't been heard. My State of Arizona depends on trade with Canada and Mexico. Over 228,000 Arizona jobs are supported by U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico, and Arizona exports over $9 billion in goods and services to Canada and Mexico. We supply them with agricultural products, engines and turbines, and over $1 billion a year in metal ores. The USMCA would support this trade through numerous key provisions. For example, new customs and trade rules will cut red tape and make it easier for small businesses to participate in trade. It also protects American innovation by modernizing rules related to intellectual property. It also encourages greater market access for America's farmers. America and Arizona stand to benefit from passage of the USMCA, but we are not doing the USMCA because our Speaker will not put it on the floor for a vote. I ask the Democrats to put their constituents ahead of partisan politics and consider the USMCA immediately. I join my friend and Rules Committee colleague in urging Members to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the previous question so that we can prioritize what is really important to America.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am a proud cosponsor of the resolution before us today to censure Congressman Adam Schiff. And I want to thank my fellow Arizona Congressman for leading the effort on this great job. We have watched Congressman Schiff say now for 2 years that he had evidence that President Trump and his campaign colluded with Russia, but then when we saw the Mueller report, we determined that that just was not accurate. Then in committee recently Mr. Schiff read a false, made-up narrative of a conversation he purported to be between President Trump and the Ukrainian President. It was absolutely made up and false, I believe, to try to deceive the American public. Then on national TV, Mr. Schiff said: No--when asked--no, our office did not have any prior contact with the whistleblower. And then we found out that that was untrue. So I support the resolution to censure Congressman Adam Schiff.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bipartisan legislation, H.R. 3694, the Helping Families Fly Act. I believe strongly that TSA's passenger screening checkpoints should be a family-friendly environment. Airports can already be stressful places for the traveling public, and that stress can be exacerbated for expecting mothers or families traveling with young children. That is why I introduced this bill, which directs TSA to train frontline personnel on how to appropriately address traveler concerns related to screening technologies and opt-out procedures. Additionally, H.R. 3694 seeks to improve the passenger screening process by increasing the availability of frontline TSA personnel and passenger support specialists for pregnant women and families with young children. Moreover, my legislation requires TSA to communicate across its various media platforms, and in partnership with transportation stakeholders, any improvements, procedures, changes, or services relevant to pregnant women and families with young children. Lastly, H.R. 3694 will examine whether certain checkpoints may accommodate dedicated family-friendly screening lanes, which will improve the experience for traveling families while also improving the operation across all checkpoint lanes. Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the Transportation and Maritime Security Subcommittee, as well as a mother and grandmother, I believe that we should be holding TSA accountable in how it interacts with the traveling public and facilitates the efficient and effective screening of passengers who are pregnant and traveling with young families. I thank the chairman of the Transportation and Maritime Security Subcommittee, Representative Correa, for his bipartisan support of this legislation. We don't always have a lot of that here, so I am very thankful that we were able to agree on this bill. Additionally, I thank Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Rogers for their work to bring this bill to the floor today and all the bill's cosponsors. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation to make travel more friendly.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, this program was reauthorized with broad bipartisan support in both 2008 and 2014. The Senate passed the Debbie Smith Act by unanimous consent in May, over 4 months ago; yet the House has yet to take up this important bill meant to end the rape kit backlog, even though it expires in just 5 days. As a survivor of domestic violence and co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, I am deeply disturbed by reports that some are using this program as leverage to get the Senate to pass other things that have nothing to do with DNA testing of rape kits. My amendment makes the vote on the previous question simple. Vote ``no'' if you believe survivors of rape and sexual assault deserve to be one step closer to justice. Vote ``no'' so we can immediately consider the Debbie Smith Act. Vote ``no'' on the previous question if you stand with survivors of rape and sexual assault. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), who is my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Scanlon for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the bills we consider today highlight how far the priorities of my colleagues across the aisle have diverged from the priorities of the American people. We consider two bills purportedly related to border security but which do nothing to solve the humanitarian crisis at our border and, like the rest of their previous so-called solutions, make the problem even worse. Instead of addressing the issues that impact American citizens and legal residents, the Democrats continue to cave to radical, leftwing activists, cater to illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens and legal residents, and malign the President for his attempts to secure or border. Then, late yesterday afternoon, a mere 1 hour and 45 minutes before the Rules Committee met, my Democratic colleagues added another item to the schedule for this rule to further their witch hunt against President Trump. The Democrats ran on kitchen table issues like healthcare, but it is becoming increasingly clear that their obsession with attacking this President and prioritizing illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens has impeded their ability to address the needs of our country. The first bill, H.R. 2203, expands the government by creating another Federal bureaucrat, an ombudsman, to investigate complaints against Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, our law enforcement on the border. This is a special ombudsman just for illegal immigrants to file complaints against law enforcement, even though there are current avenues to file complaints. It requires that bureaucrat to establish even more bureaucrats in each U.S. Border Patrol sector. On top of those bureaucrats, it creates even more to sit on a border oversight panel. The icing on the cake: The legislation gives the ombudsman no real authority to resolve any issues. This bill does nothing to address the root causes of the current humanitarian crisis on the southern border. In fact, I have introduced six bills to get to the root of the problem. None of them have been heard in the Judiciary Committee, but, instead, their bill is made up of policy provisions that cater to illegal immigrants and undermine our law enforcement at the border, thus, weakening our national security. Put simply, my Democratic colleagues' answer to our border crisis is to create a taxpayer-funded complaint box for illegal immigrants, and it gives no power to the ombudsman. The second bill, H.R. 3525, throws even more taxpayer money at programs that will do nothing for the border security Americans demand. It even jeopardizes our national security by requiring the Department of Homeland Security to reprogram funding used for combating terrorist and criminal organizations and for responding to manmade and national disasters to an IT system to track illegal immigrant health records. The bill states that this new electronic health records program has to be completed in a record 90 days. Once again, my Democratic colleagues are prioritizing illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens. Our own veterans don't even have a system like this. In fact, we in Congress have been trying to get an electronic health record system in the VA for years, and we found that it would cost multimillions of dollars. Yet there is no funding in this bill for this electronic program, so we would have to divert money from our national security priorities. This bill does divert money from protecting American citizens to enhancing the experience for illegal immigrants. I have been to a border facility in Eloy, Arizona, a detention center, and I have also been to an HHS facility in Virginia that houses unaccompanied minors. I saw that both facilities were clean and the occupants were treated well. I even ate with detainees, sat at the table with them at the Eloy Detention Center, and the food was good. Prioritizing where DHS should allocate its limited resources, my firsthand experience leads me to believe that hurricane response and thwarting terrorists are of greater concern than prioritizing illegal immigrants. Finally, the resolution, H. Res. 576, is an inappropriate rush to judgment without gathering all of the facts. First of all, the President released the call transcript text with the President of Ukraine today. I read it. To me, it is a big nothing burger, and, in fact, it demonstrates--I am glad the President released it because it demonstrates how the media and some of my Democratic colleagues were totally false in their allegations. One of the accusations was that eight times the President talked about this Biden issue with the Ukrainian President. That is totally untrue. Second, the Director of National Intelligence is testifying before the House Intelligence Committee tomorrow, on Thursday, and Chairman Schiff has already announced efforts to have a closed-door meeting with the whistleblower this week. Third, these things should occur before the House rushes into this type of resolution. I understand, and we are told on the floor today by my colleagues, that Democrats intend to amend the rule to match the Senate-passed resolution on this matter, and I am glad. They are removing the disparaging language against the President and other people in his administration that was in the House version that we saw last night in the Rules Committee. In fact, as the Speaker knows, I brought this up last night in committee, and we could have done this last night. However, I am still concerned that this resolution, as amended, is still premature. Even if the two border bills pass the Senate--and they won't--they would not help our constituents. Mr. 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, before my closing statements, I want to put on the Record that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) had said earlier that, in Rules Committee last night, Republicans gushed over the Senate resolution, and that is actually not accurate. What we did is, after Mr. Schiff made some disparaging remarks about House Republicans, if they didn't vote for the House resolution like the Senate Republicans did, that we didn't care about the issue, then I merely pointed out the differences between the Senate version and the House version, and so that is how that came about. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will just summarize the bills before us today: One, creates government bureaucrats with no real authority; Two, diverts money meant to protect Americans from terrorism, gangs, and natural disasters; Three, continues the obsession by my Democratic colleagues to bash the President and others and is a political tool. The Democrats ran on kitchen table issues. Instead, week after week, they prioritized the demands of the radical leftwing activists over the needs of the American people. 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, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), my good friend.