Floor Statements

Madam Chair, this amendment prohibits funds under this act from being used to enforce two rules under Obama's so-called Clean Power Plan.

This plan was administrative overreach, plain and simple. It would have mandated the shutdown of power plants and increased energy costs for families across the country.

The Clean Power Plan is just another example of Obama-era regulations killing American jobs, strangling our economy, and destroying our domestic energy industry.

The proposed Clean Power Plan would have required Arizona, my State, to achieve a 52 percent reduction in the CO2 emissions rate for affected power plants and to achieve about 90 percent of that reduction by next year, 2020. That was totally unrealistic.

Arizona has Palo Verde nuclear plant. It is the largest producing nuclear plant in the entire Nation. Often Arizona produces more energy than it consumes, and so we sell our energy and our electricity throughout the Southwest. So Arizona energy is American energy.

The regulations that strangle Arizona power generating stations harm American consumers well beyond our borders. I applaud the Trump administration for recognizing the harm of the Clean Power Plan and repealing and replacing it with the Affordable Clean Energy rule.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment would strike the requirement that at least $750 million of Global Health Programs shall be made available for so-called family planning, a funding stream that can support domestically-based, nongovernment organizations that support the global abortion industry.

Regard for human life has never been higher. Polling statistics indicate that Americans are as likely to identify as pro-life as they are pro-choice.

A Marist Poll shows that 75 percent of Americans would limit abortion to the first 3 months of pregnancy.

Further, Americans oppose taxpayer funding for abortion in the U.S., 54 percent to 39 percent.

Madam Chair, 75 percent of Americans oppose using tax dollars to fund abortions in foreign countries. That is 75 percent.

Our policies reflect these views through the Hyde amendment, which has protected Federal tax dollars from funding abortions in the United States for the last four decades, and the Helms amendment, passed in 1973, to protect tax dollars from being spent on abortions through U.S. foreign assistance.

Most recently, President Trump has committed to Congress and to the American people that he will veto any legislation that encourages the destruction of innocent human life at any stage.

Our President has also courageously reinstated the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy, which prohibits foreign nongovernment organizations from performing and promoting abortion as long as they are receiving U.S. tax dollars.

However, domestic nongovernment organizations are still using Federal tax dollars to perform and promote abortion abroad.

In the State and Foreign Operations appropriations language, we use the word ``family planning'' and ``reproductive health'' to disguise giving grant recipients license to permeate foreign countries with abortion.

Promoting abortion in poor, developing nations undermines our purposes in providing lifesaving assistance and, I believe, disrespects the cultures and, sometimes, the policies of those nations.

It encourages the idea that having fewer children reduces poverty and economic instability instead of promoting real solutions to those problems, like more human rights and liberties and helping women be self-employed.

Stopping domestic nongovernment organizations from using American tax dollars for abortions is consistent with our other policies, like the Hyde and Helms amendments, and the PLGHA that limits government funding for abortions, and is consistent with the views of 75 percent of Americans.

These policies save lives. In the case of my amendment, thousands of children all over the world can be saved.

To be clear, my amendment does not eliminate, nor does it reduce, funding. My amendment aims to ensure that, instead of investing funds in promoting and performing abortions abroad, the valuable dollars that fund our global health programs are vested in reducing maternal and infant mortality, treating birth complications and enabling access to safe blood, nutrition, and antibiotics.

These dollars should be used to provide quality obstetric care and true humanitarian assistance to those in need.

My amendment ensures that our Nation's policies align with the views of the vast majority of the American people. We must not allow this onslaught on children to continue being promoted in foreign nations, and especially not with our tax dollars.

Children are a source of hope, prosperity, and development. They must be treated as such from the very beginning of their lives, here and everywhere.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as a Congresswoman from the border State of Arizona, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 3056, an emergency supplemental to provide critically needed funding for the humanitarian crisis at our southern border, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of H. Res. 430.

It is disappointing that we are here again debating a measure that will have absolutely no impact on the lives of our constituents. Instead of fixing pressing issues like the security and humanitarian crisis at our southern border, the Democrats continue their focus on influencing the 2020 election at taxpayer expense. Americans are tired of this witch hunt.

For nearly 2 years, Democrats claimed that the President colluded with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election. After 22 months, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 warrants, 40 FBI agents, and spending $35 million, Special Counsel Mueller concluded there was no collusion between President Trump and Russia and did not charge him with obstruction.

Yet, my Democratic colleagues continue to attempt to undermine the President of the United States because, all I can think of is, they haven't accepted the fact that he won the election. It is clear to me that the Democrats are trying to influence the 2020 Presidential election at taxpayer expense.

Americans have real problems that we can and should be tackling instead. In May, the U.S. Border Patrol apprehended a jaw-dropping 133,000 people at our southern border. That is only the people they caught. Yet, we are here debating subpoenas targeting the President, probably because it will provide Democrats free airtime.

This unprecedented resolution should not even be on the House floor today. It has never been done before in the entire history of the United States.

The House has only sued for documents twice before. In both cases, the individuals in question were first found in contempt of Congress at both the committee level and by the full House. This has not happened here.

On top of that, the relevant subpoenas seek material that includes grand jury materials that, by law, cannot be made public. The Democrats are asking Attorney General Barr to violate the law.

When my colleagues and I tried to improve this resolution, the Democrats blocked us at every turn.

I offered an amendment that would let the American people know how much money this resolution would cost taxpayers. Democrats blocked it. Republicans offered amendments to prevent taxpayer money from going to lobbyists, to disclose contracts with lawyers, and to disclose where this taxpayer money was coming from to fund this witch hunt. Democrats blocked each and every one.

One amendment in particular highlights the partisan political, media- grabbing motives of this resolution. Republicans offered an amendment requiring the Judiciary Committee chairman to certify that he made a good faith effort to negotiate with the Attorney General, but the Democrats blocked that amendment, too.

The Attorney General has been transparent, and the Department of Justice has attempted numerous accommodations, including just yesterday when the Department of Justice agreed to let members of the committee view an unredacted report excluding grand jury material, which, by law, cannot be released.

But even as the Attorney General has attempted to work with the Committee on the Judiciary, Chairman Nadler has moved at unprecedented speed, moving from a demand for an unredacted report to subpoena to this resolution in a matter of mere weeks. From the Democrats' actions and prior statements, it is difficult not to view the purpose of this resolution and this debate as anything but political.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Biggs), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is my fellow Judiciary Committee member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), our Republican leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline), a fellow Judiciary Committee member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary is one of the most venerable in the House of Representatives, and I am honored to have been selected to join its ranks.

It has jurisdiction over intellectual property, during a time of exponential scientific breakthroughs. It has jurisdiction over election interference, during a time when we are concerned about Russians interfering with our election. It has jurisdiction over immigration issues, during a time of an unprecedented security and humanitarian crisis on our southern border.

I am disappointed to see how the Democratic majority has chosen to waste this authority. I am disappointed to see that it has chosen to ignore its responsibilities to the American people in favor of sound bites and photo ops.

Instead of legislating, the Democratic majority prefers posing with buckets of fried chicken for the national media in crude attempts to undermine our President and his administration.

Really?

It is time to move on and tackle the real issues that Americans care about.

The American people elected us, they elected me, to Congress to get things done. Let us secure the border. Let us improve healthcare. Let us improve education.

Let us stop this political theater that happens meeting after meeting and hearing after hearing in multiple committees in what I believe is a blatant attempt to influence the 2020 presidential election using taxpayer resources.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have left and how much time the other side has left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to use my 1 minute to actually refute these blatant allegations and fantasies, I believe, by my fellow Democrats, and that is how somehow the President and the Department of Justice has been stonewalling them.

Let me go over the timelines really quick.

On March 22, the Attorney General immediately notified the chairmen and the ranking members of the House and Senate Committees on Judiciary that they had received the confidential report from the special counsel.

The next day, the Attorney General informed Congress of the special counsel's principal conclusions.

March 29, he updated the Congress on what could be done and what redactions had to be made.

Then on April 18, less than a month after receiving it, the Attorney General made the redacted confidential report available to Congress and the entire public.

The same day, the Attorney General released the confidential report and made the minimally-redacted version of the confidential report available for review.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Madam Speaker, I would inquire if my colleague has any more speakers.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman McGovern for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves on the floor, yet again, to consider a rule for a piece of legislation that is nothing more than another messaging bill against the President of the United States.

This new Democratic majority has spent nearly 20 percent--20 percent--of the time debating bills on the floor that are nonbinding messaging pieces of legislation. H.R. 9 is just another example of this majority's intent on messaging against the President and the lack of any true agenda for the American people.

The reality is that we all want clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. Who doesn't? However, this bill isn't the solution.

Addressing environmental policy should not include extreme policies like the Green New Deal, nor should it involve binding ourselves to international agreements that put the United States at a disadvantage to its main security and economic competitors in the world, and with no regard to cost for American consumers and ratepayers.

Republicans have a better approach. We can protect our environment by promoting policies favoring clean energy, like nuclear, hydropower, natural gas, wind, solar, and carbon capture, and removing barriers to the deployment of new technologies and innovation.

The United States is already leading the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions through innovation and technological development. Between 2000 and 2014, in fact, the U.S. reduced emissions more than 18 percent.

We should be focused on continuing to reduce emissions, developing and exporting clean energy technologies, and making our communities more resilient, all while ensuring affordable and reliable energy prices and prioritizing the consumer and American security and prosperity.

We have serious questions concerning costs, effectiveness, and the feasibility of the U.S. commitments made by the Obama administration under the Paris Agreement 4 years ago. Even then-Secretary of State Kerry noted during the Paris negotiations that if the United States cut its CO2 emissions to zero, it would still not offset the emissions coming from the rest of the world.

The Obama administration's commitments in Paris were made without a clear plan to meet those promises, without a full view of the costs to American consumers, and, certainly, without a strategy that had broad bipartisan support of Congress.

If H.R. 9 were enacted into law, it would put the United States into a position where it could not enforce any other country's action and would put us at a disadvantage.

I have heard from some of my Democratic colleagues that their energy policies are good for consumers, that it creates many jobs and benefits the economy. When they argue this, they point to States like California, with their renewable energy mandates.

However, California finds itself in the precarious situation where it actually pays Arizona to take their energy. This is not good energy or economic policy.

If Democrats were serious about solving big problems for the American people, they would partner and work across the aisle to find bipartisan solutions that they knew would have a chance to pass in the U.S. Senate and be signed by the President.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), my good friend and the Republican whip.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend and the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how many minutes I have remaining.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank Representative Scanlon for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am a survivor of domestic violence. I also serve on the advisory council of a domestic violence shelter in my district, and I am the cochairwoman of the congressional Bipartisan Working Group to End Domestic Violence.

That is why having a strong Violence Against Women Act, commonly known as VAWA, that works for the American people is so very important to me.

Ending violence against women and protecting women and children should not be a partisan issue. However, we find ourselves debating a VAWA reauthorization act that is literally a Christmas tree of progressive, liberal policy objectives rather than an honest approach to reforming and updating such an important law for millions of women and children.

VAWA has lapsed, putting millions of women and children at risk, when it didn't need to. I, along with 194 other Republicans, voted to reauthorize VAWA through the end of the fiscal year on February 14, 2019.

I sponsored the Protecting Women Act, which would reauthorize VAWA until September 30, 2019. This would have allowed the program to stay in place while we worked in a truly bipartisan fashion to update and reauthorize this critical program.

VAWA has historically been a bipartisan bill with little controversy. However, this particular VAWA proposal moved through the Judiciary Committee without a single vote of support from any Republican.

Throughout this process, my friends across the aisle have talked a lot about bipartisanship, but I have seen little effort from my Democratic colleagues to engage in a process to pass a VAWA reauthorization bill that could garner wide-ranging bipartisan support. And believe me, I have tried.

I have reached out to my Democratic colleagues to set up meetings several times, to no avail.

H.R. 1585 is a treasure trove of liberal policy objectives that will put women, girls, and children at risk. This bill, as written, forces shelters and service providers, under the power of Federal law-- shelters that may not even be equipped--to place males in the same sleeping and showering quarters as women and children purely based on how that individual ``identifies.''

These gaping holes in the law will put women and children at risk to predators, who may have experienced trauma from male predators themselves. Based on this bill, the shelter would be required to accept a biological male even if the shelter is not equipped to separate males and females, forcing vulnerable women who have been abused and maybe sexually assaulted to shower with and sleep next to males.

We hear constantly from the other side of the aisle that this is all conjecture, what I am saying is all conjecture and completely hypothetical, and that this just does not happen. However, we know this is not true, and I have stated this before in the Judiciary Committee and the Rules Committee.

Nine women in Fresno, California, are suing a shelter for being sexually harassed in a shelter by a biological male.

The Hope Center in Alaska is another example, where a woman was quoted as saying she would rather sleep in the woods than have to be in close quarters with a male and relive her trauma.

Further, this legislation requires--requires--prisons to place biological males who identify as women in women's prisons. We have seen how this played out in Britain, where a biological man who identified as a woman raped two females.

Those on the other side of the aisle have accused those of us who want to preserve sex-segregated spaces based on biology as discriminatory and demonizing transgender individuals. This is completely false.

Nothing in the amendments that I have offered would discriminate against anyone. Any shelter could still take anyone in, but I don't want government forcing the shelters to take someone in if they are not equipped to do so.

What we are pointing out are gaping holes in this legislative proposal and potential for predators to take advantage of the law. We must give those who are sheltering and serving women the tools to keep them safe.

H.R. 1585 also seeks to eliminate due process and infringe on Second Amendment rights. I agree that we need to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, but expanding laws to prohibit individuals from exercising their Second Amendment rights without them even being present to defend themselves, as is the case in ex parte orders of protection, is a dangerous precedent.

Further, H.R. 1585 includes provisions that would result in a permanent prohibition on owning or possessing firearms by anyone convicted on a misdemeanor. Permanently losing a fundamental civil right for a misdemeanor conviction is virtually unheard of. The bill uses the legitimate and serious issue of domestic violence as a way to limit legitimate gun rights.

When coupled with the bill's expansion of the definition of ``domestic relationship'' to include ``former dating partners,'' a subjective term that could be easily abused, the bill expands power to permanently remove someone's right to own firearms to an untenable degree.

This legislation also advances policies that could reduce criminal prosecutions by tying States' grant eligibility to policies that ensure that compelling victim testimony is discouraged.

Further, it permits the use of VAWA funds for new ``alternative justice'' models, under which funds could be granted to programs that force mediation between an abuser and the victim of the abuser.

Finally, H.R. 1585 rolls back protections for sex trafficking. The bill deprioritizes the use of grant funding to protect victims of sex trafficking and would only allow this funding to go to grantees if their program is primarily focused on domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

These are just a few of the hyperpartisan provisions that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have injected into this VAWA reauthorization. We all want to protect women and children, and VAWA has typically received wide-ranging bipartisan support; however, this legislation fails to do that.

We should be focusing on commonsense, bipartisan reforms to VAWA instead of on a bill that is a nonstarter in the U.S. Senate and a bill that will not be signed by the President.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before I have my friend speak, I am going to address what Representative Scanlon said, that calling a transgender woman a biological male, she said, is offensive and it shows my disdain for transgender individuals. That is absolutely false. I have no disdain. I am just merely stating fact.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I have one comment before I introduce my friend from Oklahoma.

It is said that there has only been one incident where a biological male threatened the women, and that is just simply not true. There have been several incidences. Quite frankly, the question is, how many women have to be put in a potentially unsafe situation or have their privacy violated by males before you realize that this concern is really legitimate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Miller), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire on the time remaining?

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

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide additional consideration of H.R. 1741, authored by Representative Elise Stefanik.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1741 is a bill that would provide a 1- year extension of VAWA while we work on negotiating a long-term reauthorization of VAWA. I think there are a lot of things that the Republicans and Democrats can agree on, and I would like to come up with a bipartisan bill.

During the Rules Committee, my colleague, Representative Woodall, asked the Democrat witness if the majority would consider moving a short-term extension if the U.S. Senate does not take this bill up. The witness could not answer the question.

This is a dangerous gamble the Democrat majority is willing to play. We have received no indication that the U.S. Senate will use this bill as a starting point or move quickly on this liberal proposal, leaving VAWA unnecessarily expired during the meantime.

The Democrats are in control and have the votes to pass their bill; however, they are putting the lives of millions of women in jeopardy by gambling on what the Senate will do. We should not be gambling.

The Democrat majority has already passed up a short-term extension once via a vote, and the program has lapsed. There is no reason why we should not send an additional option that the Senate can take up quickly to keep the program functioning.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, we all--Republicans and Democrats--want to protect women and children and stop violence against women, but, unfortunately, this particular bill advances a separate policy agenda other than that.

The long history of bipartisanship of VAWA will become a thing of the past with this bill. This bill leaves gaping holes for potential predators to victimize women and children in areas that are supposed to be safe.

It advances new gun control policies to permanently restrict people from exercising their Second Amendment rights or does so without that person even being able to defend themselves in court.

It deprioritizes funding to combat sex trafficking and includes various new forms of criminal justice policy that could let perpetrators walk or have opportunities to revictimize women and children.

As a survivor of domestic violence, I want to see a VAWA reauthorization that focuses on women and children and keeps our country safe. We should be voting on legislation which all women of this Chamber could support; however, this bill is not that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am a survivor of domestic violence from a previous marriage. I serve on the advisory council of a domestic violence shelter in my district. I am the co-chairwoman of the Working Group Against Domestic Violence in Congress.

So if you haven't figured it out, this issue is very important to me and I want to protect women.

Another role I have is, I am co-chairwoman of the Congressional Women's Caucus. And in that, I spoke with my Democratic colleague, and she knew it was an important issue to me, it was an important issue to her, and we really had talked about having a bipartisan approach that all women and all of us could vote on that we would agree on.

So once I found out that Representative Bass was going to be the sponsor of the bill, I reached out to her office.

We were trying to--we just never were able to get together before the Judiciary Committee markup on the bill, in the attempt to talk with her, to see if she would listen to my concerns.

Then, in the Judiciary Committee, I offered an amendment that basically would make sure that domestic violence shelters could protect the victims and keep their privacy private. And that amendment was rejected, and I was told that it was too broad, and those types of things.

So in that Judiciary Committee hearing I asked Representative Bass if she would be agreeable to meeting with me, so I could work with her to do an amendment in a bipartisan fashion to protect women and children, and she said absolutely, yes. And, again, I reached out to her office on at least two occasions and never got a response.

So I have really tried to work on this in a bipartisan fashion, because there are some concerns I have. And let me tell you the reason why I am going to vote ``no'' on this bill, even though I am a survivor of domestic violence.

First of all, the bill forces domestic violence shelters, under penalty of Federal law, this law, to house biological males in with women. And often these women have been abused themselves, and they may not--this may violate their privacy, and it may have risks.

The second reason is this bill forces prisons to take in biological males, under penalty of Federal law, and put them in women's prisons. In the United Kingdom this happened, and a male identifying as a woman was placed in a woman's prison and ended up raping women.

The third reason is this bill takes away gun rights.

This bill, thirdly, also takes away gun rights in 2 cases: One with ex parte orders of protection; that is when a woman, like myself, would go in to see a Justice of the Peace; we would get an order of protection. Under this bill, the perpetrator's gun rights would be taken away, even though they weren't there in court.

Also, it would take away someone's gun rights if they were convicted of a misdemeanor, which is very rare.

So, again, I don't think this bill is going to get heard in the U.S. Senate, which, I hope that my friends on the other side of the aisle-- this is an important issue to all of us, and I hope that we can work together so it is something that I can support, something that we all can support, because it is a really important issue.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas, Representative Burgess, for yielding me time on this most important issue.

First, I would like to talk about the underlying bill. Equal work does deserve equal pay, regardless of the sex of the employee. In America, this is already the law of the land, and it has been since 1963 when Congress passed the Equal Pay Act. However, we stand here today debating a rule for a partisan Democrat bill that offers no protections against pay discrimination in the workplace. Instead, the bill makes it easier for trial lawyers to score unlimited paydays while dragging working women through never-ending legal dramas.

This bill also prevents women from utilizing their expertise, skills, talents, and education to their advantage. It effectively ties employers' hands from considering factors that would allow them to potentially give employees better working environments or for employees to negotiate a higher salary.

According to Camille Olson, who testified as a witness in the House Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services and on the House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, there can indeed be unintended negative consequences from this bill.

Let me read an example from her written testimony. This is her statement, and she gave an example.

It basically says: In this example an employer has chosen to pay a higher salary to a female law firm office administrator who has a J.D. degree. The job duties for that position do not include legal work. Nevertheless, in the employer's judgment, the performance of those job duties will be enhanced by the additional qualifications of a J.D., justifying the higher salary.

In this example, the male employee had a lesser degree. So in this example--because in this bill it requires business necessity--the male could sue. Even though he doesn't have as high a degree as the woman, he could say: I want equal pay.

So, what I am trying to say is because of the wording of this bill, I believe--and the witness in the committees believes--there are unintended consequences that could actually hurt women.

The employee may have a claim even if the advanced degree does actually improve performance or serve another legitimate business goal where it was not absolutely required for the job, because of the business necessity requirement in the bill.

This example may not be the exception. As our economy and culture shifts, we are finding ourselves in a world where women are attending and graduating college far more often than men. According to the U.S. Department of Education data, nearly 60 percent of those who graduated with a bachelor's degree were women. So, certainly, we do not want the unintended consequences of an employer not being able to consider the advanced education of a woman under this business necessity language in the bill.

H.R. 7 is more of the same from the new majority: government knows best. It will tie the hands of employers and prevent employees-- especially female employees--from negotiating a salary and working environment that works for them and their family. It is already against the law to discriminate, and commonsense approaches to amending the law were summarily rejected by my colleagues from the other side of the aisle.

Madam Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, we would amend this rule to include a simple change. It provides working parents more flexibility so that they can go to baseball games and science fairs; in other words, to be better parents.

I would like to read a portion of that amendment:

Notwithstanding the other provisions of the subsection, an

employee and an employer may voluntarily negotiate

compensation and benefits to provide flexibility to best meet

the needs of such employee and employer consistent with other

provisions of this act.

We all know that the greatest benefit working parents with young children want and value is flexibility. Our concern is that this radical proposal which is called paycheck fairness would actually limit the flexibility employers can give to working parents, so parents can go to their activities.

This amendment is a very simple amendment. It simply restates the law and makes it clear that if you run a dry cleaner with five people in it, you don't have to hire a lawyer to define a job for an employee with a child in such a way that the employee can go to the science fair or a baseball game.

Instead of being about more litigation and trial lawyers, it is about giving more flexibility for working parents. Working Americans should have the freedom to choose what is best for them and their families, not the Federal Government. Hardworking men and women need more flexibility to balance work, life, and family. This amendment seeks to provide additional relief in this area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Mr. Cole, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me time to speak on this most important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I tell those of you who are here today and throughout America, this is a terrible bill. I have to tell you, the more that I read about it, the more that I study about it, the worse I think that it is.

First of all, it is a total overreach of the Federal Government into States' rights. In this bill, the majority didn't even consult with the secretaries of States and the election officials throughout the entire country to see if they even liked it. And so you are mandating to the States how they should run their elections.

Not only that, it is mandating to the States how they should run redistricting. Now, in the State of Arizona, the voters of Arizona set up a redistricting commission and determined how it should be run. But in this bill it says, no, no, it shouldn't be up to the State. It shouldn't be up to the voters. We know better here in Washington, D.C. how to do your business.

Mr. Speaker, the worst part is that it subsidizes politicians with public money, a 6-to-1 matching ratio giving millions, billions more dollars to candidates. My constituents don't want to see any more of those TV commercials at all; no more signs; no more robocalls. This bill would add more money to those nasty things.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am.

Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit will not kill the bill or send it back to committee, to be clear. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.

My Democratic colleagues are set to pass this bill despite the fact that the ACLU opposes it.

Let me repeat that. The ACLU opposes H.R. 1112 because it is so sweeping and improperly perpetrates unfounded assumptions that people with mental disabilities should be considered dangerous and are prone to violence without any meaningful due process.

As most of you know, I am a survivor of domestic violence, and that is why this motion to recommit is so personally important to me. This motion to recommit, in contrast, is narrowly tailored. It would simply allow victims of domestic violence who go through a NICS check to receive their firearms in 3 days, which is the status quo, if NICS has not responded with a denial or approval in 3 business days--again, the status quo.

Do we really want to tell victims of domestic violence they have to wait up to 20 business days, which is under this bill, before they are allowed to adequately defend themselves?

Do we really want to tell them: Sorry. I know you are purchasing a firearm to protect yourself, but you have to wait 20 business days?

Should we tell them: Hopefully you can hide from your abuser for the next month?

The Judiciary Committee recently heard testimony from a young woman who was raped on her college campus. She did not have a gun on campus because the State did not allow her to carry a gun in order to defend herself. This is a clear example of how law-abiding citizens, not criminals, follow the law and how this law-abiding young woman was harmed by gun control laws.

Another specific example related to this bill of a well-intentioned law gone wrong is Carol Bowne, a New Jersey woman stabbed to death while waiting to be approved for her firearm application. She already had an order of protection from the courts, but that wasn't enough for her. She needed more than just that piece of paper. She needed to protect herself, so she went and tried to get a gun to defend herself, but because of the waiting period, she was killed.

Let me repeat that. Carol Bowne had an order of protection. She attempted to purchase a firearm, and she was tragically murdered by her abuser while waiting to be approved.

H.R. 1112 will make the realities of Carol's story happen across the country, putting millions of women and law-abiding citizens in danger. Women who seek avenues of protection will be forced to wait almost a month, like Carol.

How many women will potentially suffer like Carol? And what will the Democrats say: Sorry; we hope you can hide from your abuser for a month?

Madam Speaker, that would be foolish as well as heartless. It would be an infringement of Second Amendment rights for someone who needs them the most.

Given the insidious flaws in this bill, do we really want to burden law-abiding victims by placing them in a never-ending cycle of background checks? Of course not.

This motion to recommit is a commonsense measure. It would ensure that domestic violence victims, many of whom live in fear, can receive the protection they need and deserve.

Vote for this motion to recommit and you vote to protect domestic violence victims. Vote against the motion to recommit and you are telling victims who live in fear: Sorry; we won't help you.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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