Debbie Lesko

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to offer an amendment to remove section 4208 from H.R. 1. Section 4208 is a dangerous provision of this bill that will put people's private information on display and put their personal security at risk. This section aims to forbid anonymous speech. Throughout American history, anonymous speech about political matters has played a vital role. From the Federalist Papers, to those who supported the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, many in history had very legitimate fears of having their identities uncovered and relied on anonymous speech to show their support for certain policies and initiatives. Section 4208 removes the protection of anonymous speech forever. By requiring public reporting of the private information of individuals, partnerships, associations, and any group of people who spend $500 or more on political advertising--which is a very broad definition in this bill--we put individuals at risk. Furthermore, we drastically limit free speech and destroy the First Amendment. Notably, the courts have already begun to warn against the constitutionality of similar provisions in State law. We cannot allow this to stand. Not only will it cause a security problem for these individuals but, as we have seen, people could lose their jobs, be shamed, or even worse. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this bill. H.R. 1 is for the politicians, not the people. The bill weaponizes the Federal Election Commission, infringes on States' rights, and drastically limits freedom of speech. Arizona requires voter ID and prohibits ballot harvesting. H.R. 1 will undo Arizona laws. This bill also puts people's privacy and security at risk by requiring the disclosure of personal information for political advertisers. The bill is solely designed to benefit politicians from one particular political party. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Only 9 percent of the underlying bill goes to combating COVID-19 through public health spending. The other 91 percent is a partisan wish list being pushed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Union pensions, blue State bailouts, Planned Parenthood, and even a bridge and a tunnel. That is what most of this bill is about, not COVID-19 relief. We need targeted, tailored relief that actually helps the American people, not this $2 trillion boondoggle. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the underlying bill.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The underlying legislation we are considering in this rule is wrought with concerning provisions. One underlying bill, H.R. 803, is just another land grab that will kill jobs, make our Nation hostage to hostile foreign powers, restrict public access and recreation opportunities on our public lands, and threaten our energy independence. Specifically, in my home State of Arizona, this bill has dangerous implications for our mining industry. These provisions also threaten our national security by making the United States reliant on foreign nations for critical minerals. The other bill in this rule, the so-called Equality Act, is anything but equal. In fact, it is a threat to women's privacy and safety. This bill effectively outlaws facilities reserved for biological females. This includes restrooms, showers, and locker rooms. And outrageously, this also includes women's domestic violence shelters. As a survivor myself of domestic violence, I know the importance of these women's shelters. They are critical for women who are trying to escape domestic violence and sometimes sexual assault. Under this Equality Act, a man, a biological man, identifying as a woman cannot legally be turned away from any of these facilities. Women will lose all rights to bodily privacy, safety, and security. Vulnerable women across America deserve better, Mr. Speaker. In addition, this bill will end girls sports as we know it by mandating schools accept males into girls sports. I stand in opposition to both of the underlying bills, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, 48 years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled against basic human rights when they issued the Roe v. Wade decision. Since this decision to legalize abortion in all 50 states, over 62 million babies have been denied a chance at life. My colleagues and I gather here today to honor them and to affirm our determination to protect the unborn. The billion-dollar abortion industry has pervaded our communities and has attempted to normalize the horrors of abortion in our society. Abortion providers like Planned Parenthood call it ``essential'' and insist that it is health care. Abortion is not health care. Abortion procedures do not fight disease or heal a sickness, they deliberately and brutally end human life. Abortion is one of the great stains on America's culture and society. As a mother and a grandmother, my resolve to fight for life has only strengthened as I have served in Congress. I am grateful that so many of my colleagues and constituents stand with me to protect the unborn.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 18.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. At a time when our country needs unity, it is concerning that my Democratic colleagues have chosen to begin impeachment proceedings against a President with just 7 days left in office. All legal challenges have been exhausted. Congress has certified electors over objectors, and Joe Biden will be the next President of the United States. President Trump has indicated he will peacefully transfer power to President-elect Biden next week. So why pursue impeachment just 1 week before he leaves office? I have heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they have to impeach the President because he is too dangerous to stay in power, yet they know that it is impossible for the Senate to remove him before his term expires. So what is the point? Madam Speaker, this move sets a dangerous precedent for our Nation. If Congress is going to impeach a President, it must only be done after intense debate and deliberation, not rushed through in the 11th hour to make a political point. This impeachment attempt is dangerous for our country and has far-reaching implications for our future.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. Over the last week, we have heard calls from both parties' leaders, past and present, about the need for unity in our Nation. We have heard President-elect Biden and other members of the Democratic Party call for unity, a path forward for our Nation full of mutual consideration and respect. Yet here we are today with Democrats charging in the opposite direction, further dividing our Nation by calling for the invocation of the 25th Amendment by the Vice President. Let's consider this for a moment. My Democratic colleagues are demanding Vice President Pence invoke the 25th Amendment and take over as President. With these calls, it is clear they have full faith in the Vice President and his ability to act in a manner that is consistent with his constitutional responsibility. Simply put, they trust him to do the job. Yet the very demand they are making insinuates that Vice President Pence cannot be trusted to make the decision to invoke the 25th Amendment on his own. It calls into question the core of his judgment. If you trust someone to lead our Nation and be the acting President, shouldn't you also trust that same person to take the steps necessary to safeguard it if needed? With that, I urge opposition to the rule.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Democrats' power has literally gone to their heads. They aren't satisfied enough to have the majority and the speakership, so now they want to silence opposing viewpoints altogether. They are undoing minority rights that have been a part of Congress for over 100 years by taking away debate on the motion to recommit, something that, while in the minority, now-Speaker Pelosi actually equated to free speech. Obviously, now that she is in power, she wants to take away that freedom of speech from us. And when you think things can't get more radical around here, they do. Now the Democrats' rules package takes out words like ``mother'' and ``father'' and ``brother'' and ``sister.'' In their quest to not offend anyone, they are offending almost all of America. If we are going to go down this path, I have some suggestions to be added to this rules package. How about we add: Members who have a relationship with a Chinese spy should be removed from the Intelligence Committee. How about: Members should be punished if they leak classified information and private information after they leave the SCIF. How about: Members should be disciplined if they spread around false Russian collusion information. Of course, my Democrat colleagues would never dream of adding that. Madam Speaker, I adamantly oppose this rules package.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 244.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 246, and YEA on Roll Call No. 247

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I am glad that we finally have a bipartisan deal for COVID relief, but the process has been absolutely terrible. I have to tell you that we have, what, 6,000 pages? And what did we get? We got it, like, maybe 2 hours ago, the text of it. We were waiting all night. In fact, Speaker Pelosi had called Members back last week. We thought we were going to be doing this last Wednesday. Instead, we were doing all these suspension bills. People had to fly from all over the country--all the Congress Members--in crowded airports, crowded planes; not really good for mitigating COVID, if you ask me. Madam Speaker, I will say, though, that I am glad that, finally, after months and months of Republicans asking for a bipartisan COVID relief bill that could actually get signed into law, we are actually here today, even if it is a couple days before Christmas. And it is a bill that will help small businesses and their workers, will help the airline industry, will be a solution to Americans who are struggling with surprise medical bills. For those who are unemployed because of the coronavirus, because the governments have shut down the businesses, it will give unemployment insurance relief. But there will be protections in there to make sure that the people are really unemployed and that they will accept a reasonable offer for a job. Also good in the bill is that there is not only money for vaccine procurement but for distribution of the vaccines. On that note, I want to applaud President Trump for his action in Operation Warp Speed and for working with the private sector to get vaccines done and out the door in record time. This has never been done before in history. Normally, it takes years and years for vaccines to be done. Thank you, President Trump, for your hard work for the American people.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Evie Nguyen of Glendale, Arizona on winning the 2020 Congressional Art Competition for Arizona's 8th Congressional District. Evie's artwork, completed in charcoal and titled ``Mutual,'' highlights the close relationship between humans and nature by showcasing herself with a Cactus Wren, Arizona's state bird. Evie was a senior at Deer Valley High School when the artwork was completed. Her art is currently being displayed in the U.S. Capitol along with the other Congressional Art Competition winners from around the country. Each spring, I am proud to host the Congressional Art Competition to showcase the incredibly talented students across Arizona's 8th Congressional District. It is an honor to represent these promising young artists in Congress.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Evie Nguyen of Glendale, Arizona, on winning the 2020 Congressional Art Competition for Arizona's 8th Congressional District. Evie's artwork, completed in charcoal and titled ``Mutual,'' highlights the close relationship between humans and nature by showcasing herself with a Cactus Wren, Arizona's state bird. Evie was a senior at Deer Valley High School when the artwork was completed. Her art is currently being displayed in the U.S. Capitol along with the other Congressional Art Competition winners from around the country. Each spring, I am proud to host the Congressional Art Competition to showcase the incredibly talented students across Arizona's 8th Congressional District. It is an honor to represent these promising young artists in Congress.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Katelyn Seeley, Natalie Para, and Victoria Chrostowski on winning the 2020 Congressional App Challenge for Arizona's 8th Congressional District. Their app, How Are You, asks users key questions about their emotional and physical well-being. Users can receive personalized responses based on their answers to specific questions that include tips and different forms of encouragement. The app also provides resources and guidance for individuals who may require further professional assistance. They were inspired to create their app in order to mitigate the increasing issue of mental health, especially among those in their age group. Katelyn, Natalie, and Victoria are all seniors at Xavier Preparatory High School in Phoenix, Arizona. I am so honored to represent these bright young students in Congress.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, Arizona, a national leader in crime victims' rights, reached a milestone on November 26, 2020--30 years since the enactment of the Victims' Bill of Rights (VBR), as art. II Sec. 2.1, of the state constitution. The passage of the VBR was an immense achievement in the face of strong opposition. The movement was led by numerous crime victims, grassroots organizations, and prosecutors throughout the state. Prior to this achievement, there had been two unsuccessful attempts to get a victims' rights amendment referred by the Arizona Legislature. Strong opposition came from defense attorneys and, astonishingly, judicial officers. After two attempts to get on the ballot through legislative action, in 1990, the people of Arizona rallied to support a ballot initiative drafted by Steve Twist, then the Chief Assistant Attorney General for Arizona. Petitions were circulated and signed by thousands of Arizonans who saw and disapproved of the grave injustices in how victims were treated during the criminal justice process. The effort was truly grassroots. Led by the Victims Bill of Rights Task Force, victim advocates reached out across Arizona. On November 6, 1990, Arizonans voted overwhelmingly to add the new VBR to our constitution. In the year following, implementing statutes were drafted and passed in order to further define, preserve, and protect the constitutional victims' rights amendment. Beyond providing constitutional rights to victims on paper, Steve Twist and U.S. Senator Jon Kyl had a vision for providing victims a way to enforce their constitutional rights and assure that their voices would be heard during the criminal justice process. In 1996, the future of non-profit victim services was shaped when they founded Arizona Voice for Crime Victims (AVCV), the very first clinic of its kind to provide both legal and social services to crime victims at no cost. The first free legal and social services clinic started in 2001, in partnership with the Arizona State University (ASU) College of Law. Since its beginnings, with one lawyer and one social worker, AVCV has grown to be one of the most successful victims' rights advocacy organizations in the country and serves as a model for similar programs around the country. AVCV's attorneys, led by Chief Counsel Colleen Clase, represent victims of crime, without limitation on the type of crime, throughout Arizona's state superior courts, in city courts, justice courts, the federal district court, appellate courts up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and in front of Arizona's Board of Executive Clemency. AVCV's social services staff provide victims the emotional support needed to get through the criminal justice process. For nearly 25 years, AVCV has contributed significantly to advancing the enforcement of victim's rights by seeking appellate remedies. AVCV has litigated victims' rights issues of first impression that have resulted in published opinions that define, implement, preserve and protect victim's constitutional and statutory rights. Just this year, AVCV secured an opinion from the Arizona Supreme Court that required the court to overrule their own precedent, three cases predating Arizona's VBR, and to consider another issue of first impression in order to honor and uphold the constitutional rights of crime victims. In this case, AVCV represents a child-victim who is the older sibling of a 6-year-old murder victim and a witness to the severe child abuse and neglect that led to his murder. Three of the four family members charged in connection with the murder entered into guilty pleas, negotiated by the prosecutors and criminal defendants, containing a cap on the restitution that may be ordered to the child- victim. On behalf of the child-victim, AVCV objected to the restitution cap. On review, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed with AVCV and overruled three pre-VBR cases that required restitution caps in plea agreements, holding that restitution cannot be capped over the objection of the victim. Additionally, as a matter of first impression here in Arizona and across the country, the Arizona Supreme Court also held that counsel for a crime victim should be before the bar during proceedings in which victims' rights are at issue. AVCV continues to work toward changing the culture of the criminal justice system to be more inclusive for victims, both in Arizona and on the national level, through the filing of amicus briefs and through its work to modernize Arizona's court rules by fully integrating victims' rights into Arizona's Rules of Criminal Procedure--another task which has faced great opposition from the defense bar and certain judicial officers. AVCV's staff regularly provides training on victims' rights topics at national conferences including the National Crime Victim Law Conference, the annual National Organization for Victim Assistance Conference, and the annual Parents of Murdered Children National Conference. One of AVCV's most important partnerships has been with ASU's College of Law. This partnership is one that is essential to training future lawyers by giving law students an opportunity to work alongside AVCV's attorneys and social workers to assist and support crime victims as they navigate the criminal process. The work AVCV has done over the last 25 years has changed the lives of many crime victims who, without the free legal representation and social services they received, would have been left to navigate an arduous justice system on their own and without recourse when their constitutional rights were violated. AVCV has been able to provide thousands of victims with a sense of hope through understanding and asserting their constitutional rights for meaningful participation in our criminal justice system. AVCV has truly established the standard of ``Justice for All--Even the Victim.''

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Marc Lee, who was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart for his heroic actions on August 2, 2006, in Ramadi, Iraq. Today, the House will pass my bill, H.R. 6016, to rename a U.S. Post Office in his honor. Marc's mother, Debbie Lee, from Surprise, Arizona, in my district, had the following to say on this momentous occasion: ``Marc Lee, the first Navy SEAL killed in Iraq, loved deeply and was deeply loved. He selflessly sacrificed his life to save his teammates. Naming this post office will keep his legacy alive and remind us to live lives worthy of their sacrifices.'' It was my honor to introduce this legislation to remember the service and sacrifice of Marc Lee.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I was unable to be present for the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 222; NAY on Roll Call No. 223; NAY on Roll Call No. 224; NAY on Roll Call No. 225; YEA on Roll Call No. 226; and NAY on Roll Call No. 227.

Mrs. LESKO

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic, House Democrats are rushing to pass a sweeping marijuana legalization bill without considering the unintended consequences the legislation will have on workplace and public safety. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, studies have suggested specific links between marijuana use and adverse consequences in the workplace, such as increased risk for injuries or accidents. According to the Federal Government's own workplace safety experts at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, or NIOSH, other studies of cannabis use have demonstrated effects that include sedation, disorientation, impaired judgment, lack of concentration, and slowed fine motor skills. As my Democratic colleagues often say, we need to follow the science. Currently, it is common practice for employers in industries such as construction and warehouse logistics to enact zero-tolerance drug policies that include a prohibition on marijuana usage to protect workers by ensuring a safe workplace and to comply with Federal law. Unlike on-demand evaluations of alcohol usage, there currently is no adequate real-time intoxication testing technology for marijuana impairment. By removing marijuana from the list of scheduled substances in the Controlled Substance Act, the underlying bill will place unnecessary burdens on private employers and will needlessly jeopardize workplace and public safety and health. For instance, the removal of marijuana from the CSA creates legal jeopardy for employers who are authorized under the Americans with Disabilities Act to test for illegal drug use while such authorization does not extend to legal drugs. My motion to recommit adds specific language to the bill to affirm an employer's right to test job applicants and employees to ensure workplace and public safety. Legalization of marijuana at the State level has already created complex challenges for employers wishing to maintain a drug-free workplace while abiding by relevant employment laws. The bill before us today, which declassifies marijuana as an illegal drug, would only further complicate employers' compliance obligations and liability risks and reduce workplace safety around the country. A last-minute Democrat amendment added to H.R. 3884 recognizes the right of the Federal Government to test its employees and workers in safety-sensitive positions covered by the Department of Transportation regulations, such as pilots and railroad operators. However, the bill omits the same protections for private-sector employers in other high- hazard industries not covered by DOT regulations. If we adopt this motion, we will address legal ambiguities that may arise from removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act and affirm private employers' right to drug test employees in order to keep their workplaces and the public safe. This is not a gotcha moment. It is not playing politics. My motion to recommit is a genuine attempt to improve the bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge its passage, 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 have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill in its current form.