Debbie Lesko

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

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

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

Mrs. LESKO. H.R. 3056, the bill, provides $4.5 billion in funding to address the immediate humanitarian crisis we have on the southern border. It includes $3.3 billion for humanitarian assistance, including shelter capacity for unaccompanied children, care for children in custody, and transportation for safe and efficient border processing centers. It also includes $1.1 billion for operational support, including personnel, transportation, and resources to combat human trafficking and drug trafficking--very serious issues. It also includes $178 million for technology upgrades and law enforcement pay adjustments to respond to this great influx of families coming from Central America to our border. The Democrats today are waiving all the rules to spend $35 billion on their, I call, amnesty bill, but they have chosen to ignore the humanitarian crisis that is happening right now on our southern border. H.R. 3056 takes steps to resolve that problem. Madam Speaker, in closing, it is critical that we develop and implement a solution to the crisis at our southern border immediately. I am from Arizona. There is a crisis at our border. Instead, H.R. 6 is just another political messaging bill because my colleagues know it is not going anywhere. Madam Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying message, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, again, Republicans, too, want to have a DACA solution for the DACA recipients, but this bill isn't it, because it goes way above the DACA recipients and basically lets millions more people in, people who could be gang members, who have DUIs, and so on and so forth. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for additional consideration of H.R. 3056 authored by Representative Rogers. 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, I would inquire if my colleague has any more speakers.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, you know I am from the State of Arizona. Border security and immigration has been the top issue for years now, not only in my district, but the entire State of Arizona, because we see it firsthand. We also see the DACA recipients. I mean, they are good kids, going to school, and I applaud the good and great DACA recipients that we have. But what Representative Woodall says is true: Republicans offered two bills to give legal status and one a pathway to citizenship to DACA recipients, but this bill goes beyond DACA. It is like DACA on steroids, because it will allow millions more people to get a special pathway to citizenship in front of the line of other legal immigrants who are trying to do it the legal way. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle know this is going nowhere in the Senate and the President is not going to do this. I hope at one point we are actually going to work together, because as Representative Woodall said, on those two bills that we put forward last year that would have solved the DACA problem, not one Democrat voted for them. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my good friend.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

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

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Arizona an additional 2 minutes.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs).

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank Representative Shalala for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Madam Speaker, circumstances demand that we make substantial improvements to our Nation's broken immigration system. My home State of Arizona is at the forefront of a crisis on our Nation's southern border, but the bill before us today offers no solutions and will instead, I believe, exacerbate the problem. I have represented the people of Arizona for over a decade. Last Congress, I was honored when the people of Arizona's Eighth Congressional District sent me to represent them here in Washington, D.C. For my constituents, as residents of a border State, fixing our broken immigration system is a top priority. With Customs and Border Patrol apprehending 4,500 people per day and, in April, over 100,000 people just in that month alone, it is critical to develop and implement a solution immediately. As a member on the Homeland Security Committee, the Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on Immigration and Citizenship, and the House Rules Committee, I stand ready to work with my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to develop real solutions to our immigration crisis. Unfortunately, with the bill and the rule before us today, it is evident that the majority has no intention of advancing consensus legislation to fix our broken immigration system. The bill advances a series of what I believe are flawed policies. As the bill worked its way through the committee process, the majority denied reasonable amendments to improve the bill; and the rule passed in a party-line vote--very partisan bill--by the Rules Committee does not allow for amendments to be considered by this body as a whole at all. It is a closed rule. Democrats have framed this bill as a solution for recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program, or DACA, a laudable goal. In fact, last night in the Rules Committee, the chairman said it is only designed for a small group of people, the DACA recipients. Well, that is just not true. In fact, the American people should know what this bill really does. It provides green cards and, thus, a special path to citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, whether they are current recipients of DACA or not. Unlike President Obama's executive order on DACA, this bill allows people who have been living in the United States illegally for 40 years--decades--to get a special path to citizenship. That is not what President Obama's DACA program did. It places the interests of those who violated U.S. immigration laws above the interests of those who have been waiting and waiting to enter this country legally. It provides amnesty. It will only incentivize further illegal immigration. The American people should also know what this bill fails to do. It does nothing to provide the men and women protecting our border with the resources they need to keep our country safe. It does nothing to fix the de facto system of catch and release. It does nothing to remedy the crisis at our southern border. In fact, I believe it will make it worse. Finally, the American people should know the changes that my Republican colleagues and I proposed to improve upon this bill, all of which my Democratic colleagues rejected. Democrats rejected an amendment to exclude aliens convicted of misdemeanor firearms convictions from getting this special pathway. Democrats rejected an amendment to exclude illegals convicted of a misdemeanor DUI offense if the alien's conduct killed or injured another person or if they had multiple DUIs. What this means is, if there was an illegal immigrant who had a misdemeanor DUI that severely injured someone, they are still welcomed in under this plan. Approximately half of the 158,000 people arrested by ICE in fiscal year 2018, the illegal immigrants who were arrested, or about 81,000, had been charged or convicted of driving under the influence. This bill could reward people like this with a special pathway to citizenship. Democrats also rejected an amendment to make gang members ineligible for benefits under this bill. Democrats also rejected an amendment to make fraud a ground for ineligibility. In fact, I proposed an amendment that said, if they fraudulently fill out the application form, or misrepresented themselves as U.S. citizens in the past to get benefits, they would be rejected. Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues said no, welcome them in. Democrats rejected an amendment to remedy a confidentiality provision that prevents information contained in an application from being used for law enforcement purposes, thereby impeding law enforcement efforts. To summarize, under this bill: Gun criminals are welcome. Drunk drivers are welcome. Gang members are welcome. Fraudsters are welcome. But law enforcement hands are tied. From the bill's text and failure to adopt reasonable amendments, it is clear that my Democratic colleagues do not value the integrity of our immigration system or ensuring that criminals do not exploit loopholes in their bill. At best, they are choosing to ignore the chaos at the border and to ignore the perverse incentives of their policy of wide-reaching amnesty. At worst, they are encouraging it. Last Congress, Republicans voted for a DACA solution that enforces the law and remedies our immigration system. Republicans recognized that America is a nation of immigrants but also that the world has changed since we put in place the immigration laws governing our enforcement efforts along the southern border and that we need immigration laws reformed. That bill that Republicans proposed and I supported last year would have addressed DACA by allowing DACA recipients to obtain legal status. It would not have allowed for a special pathway to citizenship. It would not have allowed them to jump in front of the line. That Republican bill recognized that many DACA recipients entered this country without legal documentation through no fault of their own but that they were in the country and we needed a solution. That Republican bill would have also secured our border, improved enforcement, and addressed our need for skilled workers. It authorized a border wall, mandated E-Verify, and increased visas for the skilled workers we need most. It also eliminated the diversity visa lottery and increased the credible fear standard to combat asylum fraud. The bill offered reasonable immigration reform, but not one single Democratic Member of Congress voted in favor of it. Instead, today, my Democratic colleagues are advancing a bill that offers no reforms to the legal immigration system, no border security, no solutions for the humanitarian crisis that is happening each and every day at our border. And it comes with a $35 billion price tag. The crisis at our southern border is real and substantial, with Customs and Border Protection apprehending an average of 4,500 people per day on the southern border. Border Patrol facilities are beyond capacity. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities are full. The number of people apprehended in the past 7 months has already surpassed any year since 2009. At this rate, CBP will apprehend over 1.64 million people in just 1 year. That is more than the last recorded official population of the city of Phoenix. We must develop and implement a solution to the crisis at our southern border immediately. Instead, we have before us a partisan bill to provide amnesty to millions of people and incentivize countless more to cross our border illegally. This bill has no chance of being taken up by the U.S. Senate or signed by the President. The majority's inaction to the crisis at our southern border is absolutely unacceptable. Speaker Pelosi and the Democratic leadership refused to even fund the extra funding for the humanitarian crisis that would help the children and the migrants themselves. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I am proud to speak before the U.S. House of Representatives in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the House passage of the 19th Amendment that gave all women the right to vote. This centennial is one of the most important in our Nation's history, and I am thrilled to be celebrating it with my colleagues here on the House floor. The fight for women's suffrage in my State of Arizona began when we were still a territory in the 1800s. Brave women, like Josephine Hughes of Tucson, Frances Munds of Prescott, and others, led the suffragist movement in Arizona so that women in Arizona won the right to vote even before the 19th Amendment passed. Let us celebrate the many women and men who fought for so much over so many years to ensure the right to vote for women in America. As the daughter of a great mother, as the mother of a wonderful daughter, and as the grandmother to a 1-week-old granddaughter, I am so proud to be here today to honor this great, historic moment.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, this bill actually does the opposite. H.R. 5 prioritizes the rights of some Americans over the rights of others. This is not equality. This is far from it. Madam Speaker, I speak before you now willing and desiring to work with any and all of my colleagues on policies that will truly promote women's rights and equality. However, this bill, unfortunately, does neither. Madam Speaker, with that, I urge opposition of this bill.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5. Madam Speaker, H.R. 5, the so-called Equality Act, should really be called the ``Forfeiting Women's Rights Act.'' According to multiple experts, lawyers, and organizations, H.R. 5 would indeed prohibit, in all circumstances, under penalty of Federal law, any acknowledgement of the reality of biological sex; would allow anyone at any time to declare that he or she identifies as the opposite sex, without any medical or psychological diagnosis. It would erase women and girls' rights by requiring facilities, such as schools, churches, dormitories, domestic violence shelters, homeless shelters, to allow biological males who identify as women in women's bathrooms, women's and girls' shelters, women's and girls' showers, and in women's locker rooms. This will indeed violate women's privacy and can ultimately violate their safety. The danger to women when biological men seek to claim female identity should seem obvious, but it is being ignored by proponents of this bill. H.R. 5 puts women at risk by promoting a Federal law that would overrule any restriction on gender identity claims and abolish the protections of biological sex-specific practices and spaces. H.R. 5 will eliminate women and girls' sports by requiring that men and boys be allowed to compete in women's and girls' sports. This is already happening. H.R. 5 will also require doctors to provide sex change surgeries and sex change hormones to adolescents without parental consent and without a medical or psychological diagnosis. This could permanently sterilize young girls. H.R. 5 denies constitutional religious protections by totally eliminating the bipartisan Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was supported by so many Democrats back then, and this is being done for the first time ever since the act was passed. Congress should only pass laws that protect women, not threaten, silence, or abandon them. In fact, H.R. 5 puts everything that women have worked so hard to gain, opportunities and protections, at risk. I believe that in our society, laws should seek to protect the safety and privacy of every woman and girl.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, if this unanimous consent request cannot be entertained, I urge the Speaker and the majority leader to immediately schedule the born-alive bill, so we can stand up and protect the sanctity of human life.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 962, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which requires appropriate medical care for babies who survive abortion procedures and imposes strong criminal penalties for failure to provide such care, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, it is about time that the American people know where Members of Congress stand on this radical proposal of the Green New Deal, which will change nearly every aspect of Americans' lives. Even the sponsor of this legislation has requested hearings on this proposal since the Speaker and the Democratic leadership refuse to give the Green New Deal any legislative hearings. I would like to lay out some of it here. Estimations show energy bills under the Green New Deal would spike by as much as $3,800 per year, per family. The resolution calls for upgrading all--all--existing buildings in the United States and constructing new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, which could range between $1.6 trillion, with a t, and $4.2 trillion in cost. What is the estimated total price tag for the Green New Deal? Up to $93 trillion. That is with a t, trillion dollars. So where is this money going to come from? The Green New Deal could cost nearly $65,000 per year, per household, much higher than the average family income. We have seen the Democratic majority bring messaging bill after messaging bill to the floor. Why not this one? Why not the Green New Deal? Why not truly let the American people know where the Democrats stand on what I believe is a radical proposal that will hurt our Nation and kill jobs? Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice), my good friend.

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

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. Madam Speaker, in closing, we all want to protect the environment, both Republicans and Democrats, and ensure that we are leaving a better world for on our children, grandchildren, and future generations. Unfortunately, H.R. 9 is not, in my opinion, a legitimate solution. H.R. 9 is little more than a messaging bill that is intended to undermine the President and message to the Democratic base. We do have an opportunity to get things done here, but it takes a willingness from those in power to work with us in a bipartisan fashion for a solution. Republicans want to focus on clean and affordable energy solutions that will create stability for consumers at affordable rates. We should be working together on these solutions and on real pieces of legislation that have the ability to pass the U.S. Senate and be signed by the President. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide additional consideration of H. Res. 109, the notorious Green New Deal. 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.