Debbie Lesko

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 263, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 264, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 265.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 266 and ``nay'' on rollcall no. 267.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 261 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 262.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment that is included in this en bloc. My amendment strikes section 241, which requires foster care and adoption agencies to comply with Obama-era regulations on sexual orientation and gender identity and prohibits the use of funds to grant exceptions. Section 241 is an attack on religious liberty. Similar provisions allowed the city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to refuse a contract with Catholic Social Services unless they certified same-sex couples as foster parents. My amendment ensures that faith-based adoption and foster care agencies do not have to choose between their ministry and their faith. It is tyrannical for the government to force these entities to choose between the two. It is our job in Congress to uphold our constitutional right of religious freedom. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

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

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My amendment strikes section 316. Under current law, universities are already allowed to conduct research on marijuana as long as the university gets approval from the Drug Enforcement Agency and buys the marijuana from the University of Mississippi, the DEA's approved provider. Additionally, universities are currently required to comply with the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act which prohibits universities from unlawfully manufacturing, distributing and dispensing, or possessing a controlled substance. A violation of this law would result in a loss of Federal funding. Democrats want to change all of this. Section 316 allows universities to skirt these requirements. If universities are allowed to engage in cannabis growing and research without any safeguards, who is to say that this provision would not permit universities to offer a class called Pot Smoking 101, dedicated to smoking pot under the false pretense of research. Pushing for marijuana research in universities also fails to account for the fact that because marijuana is a schedule I drug, Federal law requires certain safeguards, including a limited-access room and a specific storage safe for the drug. My amendment allows for the withholding of Federal funds if universities fail to implement these necessary safeguards. An appropriations package is, quite simply, not the place for debate on a legalization of or looser restrictions for marijuana. My colleagues across the aisle are using this partisan package as a roundabout way of legalizing marijuana without having any meaningful debate about its classification as a schedule I drug or the effects that the drug has on Americans' health. This appropriations package should not be an opportunity to push an agenda without meaningful debate about the consequences of legalizing a schedule I drug. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, universities are already allowed to do research on marijuana as long as they follow DEA and other safety guidelines. The problem with inserting section 316 is it takes away those safeguards, so I would say that there should be no concern that my amendment will stop research in universities. In fact, universities are allowed to do it now and will continue to do it, even if my amendment passes. It just is the case that right now, there are safeguards. There has to be safeguards around a schedule I drug, and if this bill, without my amendment, is passed, the safeguards will be gone and that is the problem. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the border. I live in a border State. I have been to the border a number of times. But last week, I got to go to the border again in Nogales, Arizona. I can attest firsthand that there is a crisis at our border. I talked to Customs and Border Patrol agents and other officials, and they all have said that this is the worst that they have seen it in their entire career, and some of them have worked for 30 years for Customs and Border Protection. I went down in a tunnel with the CBP officers, and it smelled. There was trash everywhere. And these Customs and Border Protection officers have to monitor the tunnels for human trafficking, sex trafficking, and drug trafficking. At one of the ports of entry in Nogales, the Mariposa port of entry, they have seized, in the first 12 days of July, 500,000 fentanyl pills. Do you know how many people that can kill? I call on the Biden administration to do something about the border crisis. The policies that he has set forth are causing this problem. I visited parts of the border fence where there are just big openings, but the material is laying there right on the ground. We have already paid for it. This is insanity. It is total insanity. I also heard that the Biden administration wants to repeal title 42, which is the one thing that is causing it from being more of a disaster. Madam Speaker, I ask Mr. Biden, Kamala Harris, Democrats, please help us secure the border.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Although there are parts of the rule that I agree with, I am going to talk today about the PFAS Action Act and why I think it is a problem. Republicans and Democrats alike are concerned about our water quality. Of course, we want to make sure that we have good-quality drinking water. Unfortunately, the PFAS Action Act goes too far. It classifies over 9,000 chemicals as hazardous. This is a huge problem because there are a lot of materials that are made with PFAS chemicals that aren't harmful to humans. In one case in point, in my district, there is a company called W. L. Gore. Most of you know about it because they make GORE-TEX, but they also make medical devices. They have 2,000 employees in Flagstaff, Arizona, and they have 1,000 employees in my district. They make heart stents. I went on a tour of their company. They make all kinds of medical devices that are implanted in human beings that we rely on to save lives. Yet, those medical devices have a form of PFAS in them. If this legislation is passed, you are basically going to cause them to be called hazardous materials, and we won't be able to implant these in people. This is a huge problem, and I think that my Democratic friends just need to think this through a little bit more. All of us want clean drinking water. But there are so many different uses of these PFAS chemicals, over 9,000 of them, and some of them are for really good uses, like these medical devices, the heart stents. That is why I oppose this rule. I ask my Democrat colleagues to reconsider. We had an amendment in the Energy and Commerce Committee that was rejected by the Democrats, although one of the members said they would like to revisit and fix it.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my profound support for life. Unfortunately, life is under attack in America right now. With the introduction of a Democrat budget that does not feature the Hyde amendment protections, taxpayers could soon be funding abortions-- something that has been outlawed for many years. Ending these safeguards is both unpopular and unrepresentative of the will of the American people. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize abortions that destroy the dignity of life and millions of unborn babies in America. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 18, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This bill should be focused on proposals that make the United States more competitive in the global economy, and update our Nation's infrastructure; but instead it is filled with detrimental mandates. Despite the fact that rail offers one of the most environmentally efficient ways to transport goods, this bill includes regulations that undermine the railroad industry's ability to offer competitive services. The bill effectively prohibits movement of liquefied natural gas by rail, despite extensive research into the safety of this method by the Department of Transportation. This legislation also would allow the EPA to enact burdensome regulations on drinking water utilities, driving up costs for low- income consumers. Under these new regulations, drinking water utilities that serve smaller, lower-income communities cannot receive direct funding from the EPA. This harms low-income consumers and those on fixed incomes. They will have to jump through burdensome hoops and will face increased costs that many of them cannot afford. In drafting this bill, Democrats have pushed aside commonsense solutions to push their radical, partisan agenda. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. America's oil and gas industry is truly the backbone of the American economy, supporting 10 million jobs and contributing to billions of dollars of economic development in all 50 States. The energy industry is critical to our economic and national security, providing low and stable energy prices to American families and ensuring our independence from the Middle East and Russia. Despite these essential contributions, Democrats here are attempting to strap the industry with duplicative and unnecessary regulations. This resolution will contribute to American job losses and higher energy costs for American consumers, right on their energy bills. This will also not reduce worldwide emissions, and the reason is because China is building coal-fired power plants at a rate that outpaces the rest of the world combined. So what we are doing here with not only this resolution, but the other policies that my friends on the other side of the aisle are pushing, is we are actually hurting America, losing American jobs, giving up our energy independence so we are reliant on China and Russia and the Middle East. Why in the world would we do that? Mr. Lamb said this is for America. I totally disagree. This will hurt America and this bill will help China and Russia. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the important contributions of amateur radio operators in Arizona and across the Nation. Throughout our Nation's history, amateur radio has served an important purpose. From providing a means of communication in times of crisis, to assisting emergency operators in natural disasters, amateur radio operators are an important part of the communities across our country. Arizona is home to at least 23,000 amateur radio operators and hundreds of amateur radio groups and clubs. This week, the American Radio Relay League will host their annual field day, where thousands of amateur radio groups across the country will prepare for future crises. Since 1933, amateur radio operators have practiced the rapid and effective deployment of radio communications equipment through these field day events. I am honored to recognize the important contributions of amateur radio operators, and I wish them a safe and effective field day this weekend.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3723, the Consumer Safety Technology Act. This is important legislation that helps the U.S. solidify its position as a world leader in technology and innovation while protecting our constituents. This legislation builds on the American COMPETE Act, which sought to remove burdensome regulatory barriers to promote American innovation and consider how safely using artificial intelligence can transform the future. This is also a critical step in maintaining our global competitive edge in emerging technologies over foreign adversaries like China. It will make us less reliant on these bad actors for important technologies. The Consumer Safety and Technology Act establishes a pilot program to explore how to safely use artificial intelligence to protect consumers from unsafe products while advancing cutting-edge American innovation. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, there is growing evidence that COVID-19 originated in a lab in Wuhan, China, which the liberal media and Big Tech dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Time and time again, the Chinese Communist Party has lied and covered up the origins of COVID-19. Republicans have repeatedly called for a full, thorough investigation into this virus, but these calls have fallen on deaf ears. It is unclear why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have refused to hold Communist China accountable. They refuse to allocate any resources to support a full investigation or even hold a hearing. They are allowing China to get away with its deadly lies. Over 600,000 Americans have died from COVID-19. It is time to stop pushing the America last agenda that prioritizes the Chinese Communist Party over giving the American people the answers they deserve.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the centennial of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. On November 11, 2021, Veteran's Day, the United States will mark 100 years since the internment of an unidentifiable member of the American Expeditionary Forces of World War I at Arlington National Cemetery. The place of interment has come to be known as the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and is regarded as America's most sacred shrine. It is dedicated to all veterans that have served and made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our great nation. My congressional district is home to over 70,000 veterans and their families; and on this day and every day, we honor ALL who served and continue to serve our country.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Johnson for yielding. For the past year, we have heard dangerous calls to disband, defund, and dismantle the police. Guess what? Since then, dangerous crimes have skyrocketed. Is it any wonder? We have also seen a rising number of police officers killed or wounded in the line of duty. This is totally unacceptable, and the effort to vilify the police is to blame. Our Nation's police officers are brave and hardworking men and women who put themselves on the front line each and every day to protect us and my constituents. These officers deserve to go home to their families at the end of the day. I am grateful for the sacrifices of our law enforcement officers in Arizona and throughout the entire Nation. Both, during the National Police Week and every single day, I will support our law enforcement and defend the police. The vilification of our police officers is having a terrible effect in our communities. I have talked to police chiefs who are having a difficult time even hiring police officers, and this push in some of the legislation that we passed here in this very own House to take away qualified immunity from the police so that anybody can sue them personally is wrong. I will continue to stand up for the police, I will continue to stand up for the public, and I will continue to stand up for public safety.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, there is a border crisis. Let's just face it. President Biden even slipped over the weekend and said it was a crisis. Then the White House had to pull it back. When thousands of people are crossing the border each and every day, it is a humanitarian crisis, it is a health crisis, and it is a national security crisis because we now know that at least a couple of the people that they caught were on the terrorist watch list. Just yesterday, the Governor of Arizona declared a State emergency and sent National Guard to help our law enforcement in our border communities. You know what the Customs and Border Patrol did under the Biden administration? They dropped off 16 people, including kids, in the middle of a park in a small community 80 miles north of the border, Gila Bend, Arizona. They don't have a shelter; they don't have a hospital there. They have nothing. The mayor and his wife had to borrow a van to transport these people to a Phoenix shelter. Now, what kind of President does that? If this happened, if these unaccompanied children were just left to be handled by cartels, by a U.S. citizen, that U.S. citizen would be charged with child abuse and be in prison right now. This is unconscionable, and it needs to stop now.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, the underlying legislation we are considering in this rule is extremely alarming. We have two out-of- touch immigration bills that do nothing to address our current immigration crisis, and then we have a partisan priority that reeks of the swamp and is simply unconstitutional. H.R. 1333 restricts any President's authority to suspend entry into the United States from certain foreign nationals for national security or public health reasons putting the safety of Americans at risk. With H.R. 1573, it appears my colleagues on the other side of the aisle plan to address the crisis at our southern border by sending in the lawyers. President Biden created this crisis with his policies, and this bill just continues to encourage more people to come and cross our border illegally. We wrap up this rule with the most ridiculous legislation of all, the unconstitutional H.R. 51. Our Founders envisioned our Nation's Capitol set apart from the States and enshrined that in our Constitution. No action by this body can make Washington, D.C. a State, nor is there a reason to take such action other than to ensure the Democratic Party receives two more seats in the United States Senate. Madam Speaker, I stand in opposition to the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This push to remove the deadline for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment is an unnecessary and unconstitutional power-grab. This bill is unconstitutional. Congress set a deadline for the ERA; it was 1979. With only 35 of the 38 States needed for ratification at the time, Congress extended the deadline to 1982, but no other States joined in, ending the ratification process for the equal rights amendment. Even the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that the deadline for the ERA ratification had long passed. She said: ``I would like to see a new beginning. I'd like it to start over. There's too much controversy about latecomers--Virginia, long after the deadline passed. Plus, a number of States have withdrawn their ratification. So, if you count a latecomer on the plus side, how can you disregard States that said, ``We've changed our minds?''' If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to ratify the ERA, they have to start over. Women also already have equal rights under the law. In decision after decision, the United States Supreme Court has underscored that the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution gives women equal rights and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, rendering, I believe, the ERA unnecessary. Finally, if ratified, the ERA would be used to codify the right to abortion, undoing pro-life protections, and forcing taxpayers to fund abortions. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that their State's ERA provision required the State to fund abortions. Numerous pro-abortion groups have already made the case for ratifying the ERA on the basis of expanding their abortion agenda. Just listen to the words of the organizations pushing this legislation themselves. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, NARAL, has claimed that, ``With its ratification, the ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion.'' Planned Parenthood and the Women's Law Project has said that State bans and government funding of elective abortions are ``contrary to a modern understanding of the ERA.'' The National Organization for Women has said, ``An ERA--properly interpreted--could negate the hundreds of laws that have been passed restricting access to abortion care and contraception.'' With this unconstitutional bill, my colleagues across the aisle are hiding behind the rhetoric of equality for women to eliminate any and all protections for unborn babies, half of which would be girls, then women, if given the chance to live. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. This version of the Violence Against Women Act does not protect women. Instead, this bill puts partisan political priorities ahead of women in need. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to claim they are the party of women, this partisan reauthorization proves that they only put women first when it is convenient. I am a survivor of domestic violence from a previous marriage. I was afraid for my life, and I was afraid for my daughter's life. Thankfully, I escaped that terrible situation. So I am intimately familiar with the desperate situations many women who are victims of domestic abuse face. As a domestic violence survivor, I know just how important services and protections are to women across our Nation. Previous reauthorizations of the Violence Against Women Act have been bipartisan, but not this one. This version is filled with partisan priorities that force women's domestic violence shelters to take in men who identify as women, strip away protections for religious organizations, and eliminate Second Amendment rights without due process. The most egregious provisions of this bill push leftist gender ideology at the expense of important protections for women's privacy and safety. Sex-segregated shelters provide a safe place for women who have been abused, often at the hands of men, and offer them a sense of privacy and security. If this bill is enacted, these shelters, under penalty of Federal law, would be required to take in men and shelter them with women, putting vulnerable women at risk. Religious objections are also under attack in this legislation. This bill excludes critical First Amendment protections for faith-based organizations. This almost certainly guarantees that attacks on religious organizations will continue over disagreements on religious liberty and gender ideology. This bill is also being used to change and erode Second Amendment rights for everyone by introducing a new provision that would lower the standard by which government can take away someone's right to bear arms without due process, including for nonfelony crimes. Passing legislation that supports women who have been victims of domestic abuse, trafficking, and sexual assault should be a bipartisan issue. In this partisan Violence Against Women Act, women in need are not the priority. Leftist ideology is the priority. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Jordan, for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. H.R. 8 is an assault on our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The bill turns law-abiding citizens into criminals by subjecting them to criminal penalties for simply lending a friend or a neighbor a gun on a temporary basis. Additionally, the bill would inevitably lead to a national gun registry because, without a registry, the government has no way to implement this legislation. This bill is certainly a slippery slope. Most alarmingly, this bill does nothing, absolutely nothing, to stop criminals from obtaining firearms. According to the Department of Justice, less than 1 percent of criminals in prison who possessed a firearm during their offense obtained the firearm from a licensed dealer, meaning criminals would still have access to firearms under this law. Mr. Speaker, this bill is just the first of many steps to take away our Second Amendment rights. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, during their floor speeches today, both Speaker Pelosi and Leader Hoyer claimed this bill is for the workers. If my Democratic colleagues care so much about American workers, why do they support incentivizing millions of illegal immigrants into our Nation to take away jobs from American workers? Why do they support this bill that could force workers to pay union dues even if they don't want to? Why do they want to take away Arizona workers' rights under the Arizona's right-to-work law? This bill is bad for employees. It is bad for employers. And it is bad for America. I oppose this bill.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back into the classroom.