Floor Statements

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.

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

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Transportation Security Officers at the Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport for their bravery and dedication to their mission to keep our airports safe.

Last month on June 18, a man rushed a TSA security checkpoint at the Phoenix Airport, injuring and knocking over several TSOs in the process. I would like to thank the following TSOs who showed courage in subduing the attacker, even as he attempted to hurt and push past the officers:

Donna Potts O'Brien, Cynthia Baker, Christopher Cotton, Sandra Thompson, Patricia Miller-Davis, Gladys Recinos, Michael Malloy, Melvin Gorham, Adam Ervin, Kenneth Fetter, Robert Morelos, Michael Wilmoth, and Roberto Lopez.

I am grateful to these heroic officers and commend their actions to keep the Phoenix Airport secure.

Madam Speaker, well, here we are again, and I talked on this before.

I am from the State of Arizona, so border security is top and center of the discussion in Arizona and it has, quite frankly, been for years.

We have all known there has been a crisis at our border for many, many years, and that is why I am at least hopeful and inspired a little bit that my Democratic colleagues are actually admitting--finally--that there is a crisis at our border. So that is good.

The thing that is bad about this rule today is that I just don't understand. I guess some of my Democratic colleagues are just being stubborn because, on the one hand, you have the Senate that already passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill, where Senator Schumer voted for it. You have a President who said we are not in favor of this House version of the bill.

So here you have a President who, seemingly, is willing to sign the Senate bill; you have a Senate bill that has vast bipartisan support, even with the

top leadership in the Democrat Party; but, yet, here we are in the House, and I guess Members just want to make sure they have what they want in their bill, even if it is not going to pass and even if the money isn't going to actually get to solving the problem.

And so I ask my Democrat colleagues to put your stubbornness a little bit aside, because if we all have the goal, as has been said on both sides, to help solve this problem, to help with the children who are dying at the border, you know--what was it? Yesterday we saw the picture of the father and the daughter, and then June 14, we had a story in Arizona of a young 7-year-old girl who died, and the Arizona Air National Guard helped find and rescued other members of the party. I think we are united in trying to solve the problem, and I am glad that my Democrats finally say there is a crisis, to have acknowledged it.

But if you really want to help, let's stop this. Okay. Let's stop what you are doing, because I don't think you are going to win. You have the President on one side, the Senate on one side with bipartisan support, including Mr. Schumer, and yet we are here today, right before the July Fourth recess, and instead of giving in and saying let's just put up the Senate bill that we know is going to pass, that we know is going to help, you continue to, I guess, try to make a point.

Madam Speaker, I sincerely hope the Members have made their points, have made their talking points. Now let's get down to the business of doing what we are supposed to do in Congress: Pass a bill, pass the bipartisan Senate bill, but, also, let's work together on actually reforming our immigration laws, the root of the problem that is causing this problem, so we are not back here in 6 months or 1 year doing this again.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize some of the incredible work our VA centers are doing. Joseph Faranda is a U.S. Navy veteran who served for almost nine years. During his service, he was diagnosed with cancer. Joe was able to beat cancer the first time, but 17 years later he was diagnosed with cancer again.

When Joe reached out to schedule an appointment at the VA, the team urgently placed an order for an ultrasound and for him to be seen by the end of the week. When Joe went for his ultrasound, his doctor immediately recommended he check himself into the VA's

Emergency Room--advice that would ultimately save his life.

Joe received treatment and support from his care team and is now recovering quickly. Joe said, ``I can confidently say that if I need to return to the Phoenix VA, I will be in good hands.''

I want to recognize Doctor Ronald Jacoby and Nurse Shauna Fox for their exceptional care and dedication to Joe and all of our Arizona veterans. Thankfully, Joe's prognosis is very good, and I have full faith he will beat cancer once again.

Mr. Speaker, being from Arizona, this issue is very important to me, and it has been for years.

I am glad that my Democratic colleagues are finally acknowledging that

there is a crisis at the border, because we have known there was a crisis for, what, 20 years now, and it keeps growing and growing.

The reason I say that: I know, today, everyone is standing up and saying, ``Let's help everyone.'' And I am glad of that, but it wasn't that long ago, on national TV, that Speaker Pelosi and Senator Schumer went in front of the public and said: This is a manufactured crisis. Trump and the Republicans are making it all up.

Well, if anyone goes to the border, like I have gone to the border, you will see that it is a real crisis and it is growing each and every day. That is why President Trump asked for humanitarian aid on May 1.

Then, the Department of Homeland Security and HHS sent all of us this letter--all of us Congressmen and Congresswomen--saying: We need help now. We are running out of funds. This is a crisis.

So, the Republicans made motion after motion after motion--17 times-- asking for humanitarian aid.

And what did my Democrat colleagues do? They said no. No. They rejected every one.

So, here I am in Rules Committee last night--it is almost midnight-- and we thought we were going to vote on this bill, on the humanitarian aid. Nope. Pulled out. Nope. I guess they couldn't get the votes over on the Democratic side.

So, then they did a change. From what the media said, some of their more progressive members demanded some requirements and changes.

So we were supposed to meet at rules at 11 a.m. this morning with a new bill. Nope. That was pulled.

So, here we are. We got the new version of the bill at 5:00 tonight. We had the rules meeting at 5:30. Then we started the rules debate at 6:00. We didn't even have time to read the bill.

So, I have some major concerns with this bill. I wish we had worked on a bipartisan basis.

To give you one example, there was a young girl who died in Arizona-- actually, was found dead--7 years old. And guess who helped rescue the other members of the party? It was the Arizona National Guard.

Yet, the bill prevents any funding from going to the Department of Defense that will help with the Arizona National Guard and other national guards that are helping at the border.

I really wish that we could work together in a bipartisan fashion, get something done, go back to rules.

Let's do a clean bill. Let's send it to the Senate tonight. Let's help solve this crisis now.

Madam Chair, I am proud to sponsor an amendment that will help women veterans. My amendment would ensure that no less than $3 million under the Veterans Health Administration should be directed toward

women-only inpatient clinics for mental healthcare.

The current system could force women suffering with PTSD caused by military sexual trauma to be admitted into a male-dominant ward, which could further traumatize or revictimize them.

The veteran suicide rate is, sadly, only increasing, and we need to protect our veterans when they are feeling vulnerable. Women veterans should not be humiliated, marginalized, traumatized, or victimized to the point of giving up and believing that suicide is the only way out. We need to protect them.