Providing for Consideration of H.R. Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. American Dream and Promise Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Farm Workforce Modernization Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Preventing Paygo Sequestration; Providing for Consideration of H.J. Res. Removing the Deadline for the Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment; and for Other Purposes

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules Committee, the Representative from California, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, a continuation of the Democrats' weeks-long partisan push to fulfill their partisan wish list.

First up is H.R. 1620, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which is a highly divisive distortion of the original Violence Against Women Act, that will jeopardize the safety of women.

By extending services to men who identify as women and allowing them to utilize programs that were designed to protect vulnerable women, the bill puts the safety of women at risk. The bill expands the definition of domestic violence to include economic and emotional duress, driving needed resources away from combatting violent crimes against women and promoting an unproven restorative justice approach instead.

Democrats have told us again and again that it is time to rethink our approach to law enforcement. But the same Democrats who want to defund the police are now pushing this unfunded mandate, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, upon law enforcement. That doesn't help anyone.

Next is H.J. Res. 17, which removes the established deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment. As the deadline for States to ratify the ERA has long passed, the constitutionality of this legislation is suspect, at best. Congress does not have the authority to simply extend the deadline some four decades later.

I also have concerns about this amendment radicalizing gender to enshrine pro-abortion rights in the Constitution. I do not need a constitutional amendment to tell me I am equal. The Constitution and Federal law already require equal protection for all Americans.

If my colleagues on the other side were serious about the equal rights amendment, they would ensure that the process for adoption was done entirely by the book, rather than saying ``good enough,'' as they move forward in this questionable manner.

Next, H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2021, will provide amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, incentivize illegal border crossings, and worsen the surge of illegal immigration we are currently seeing. The bill will provide green cards to criminal aliens at a time when the southern border is already overwhelmed, costing taxpayers hundreds of billions more.

H.R. 1868 addresses the very real budgetary consequences of last week's massive partisan spending package being signed into law. While we can all agree that we should avoid cuts to mandatory spending that have been automatically triggered by this level of spending, there was an opportunity to work across the aisle on a bipartisan solution. It is unfortunate that the majority has chosen, once again, to forge ahead on their own with highly partisan policies.

For these reasons, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to think twice before supporting this rule. We can do better for the American people.

Finally, I want to address H.R. 1603, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, a bipartisan effort to reform our agricultural worker programs to address the workforce needs of our agricultural community.

While I appreciate the efforts of my colleagues, including my colleague from the State of Washington, Congressman Newhouse, and others on both sides of the aisle to negotiate in good faith on this legislation, I will point out that this bill is not without its flaws. It does not address the already high cost of the H-2A program to make it a more economical solution to producers.

It introduces a new private right of action against employers that risks costly litigation that our producers cannot afford. These types of issues are why stakeholders, such as the American Farm Bureau, have concerns with this legislation. Make no mistake, a viable workforce for our agriculture industry is a national security issue. However, I would like my colleagues to recognize that, with the current language, this bill is not the end-all and be-all solution for our farmers and ranchers. While this legislation may pass the full floor this week as it stands, I hope our counterparts in the other body improve the bill before it is sent to the President.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my good friend and another colleague from the Rules Committee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of Congresswoman Miller-Meeks' H.R. 1897, the REACT Act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks) to speak further on the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, in closing, there is a crisis at our border. Whether the Democrats acknowledge it or not, our border patrol agents are overwhelmed, detention facilities are way over capacity, and COVID-19 is spreading unchecked throughout. This puts the health of both individuals detained and the border agents at risk.

We currently require a negative COVID test to travel in the U.S. So why should the southern border be any different?

The border crisis is a direct result of the administration's lax immigration policy, and it is putting our communities at further risk of contracting COVID-19.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and a ``no'' vote on the underlying measure.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source