Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, in 1994, then-Senator Joe Biden said: ``Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.''

Well, Mr. President, I certainly agree.

For more than four decades, the Hyde amendment has ensured the American people are not forced to fund abortion on-demand, a procedure at great odds with so many of our personal and religious beliefs, and an injustice that leaves an irreversible mark on so many lives.

Since 1976, the Hyde amendment has had bipartisan support from Congress, has been signed into law by both Republican and Democrat Presidents, and has been supported by the majority of the American people.

It has saved the lives of millions. But President Biden and the Democrats want to end those protections, forcing the American people to fund a procedure that is at such serious odds with our personal, religious, and moral beliefs.

There is no more vulnerable person than a child in the womb. Do they not deserve our care and our protection? Does that life not also have value, just like the lives of you and me, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: We are treading in dangerous territory. Instead of working toward a government that builds all people up for the common good, we are choosing to subsidize the deaths of unborn babies.

I believe that is appalling, and I urge my colleagues to reconsider their positions. We must pass H.R. 18 and respect the wishes of the American people: Tax dollars should not be used to fund abortions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 409. I want to second what my colleague, the gentleman from California, has said about the importance of the CFTC Whistleblower Office and the Office of Customer Education and Outreach, and, of course, the employees who work in those offices.

These offices help the Commission meet its mission to promote integrity, resilience, and vibrancy of the U.S. derivatives markets. I am proud to support today's legislation to avoid unnecessary disruptions to these activities and needless staff furloughs.

The work in these offices, particularly the Whistleblower Office, helps to root out violations of the law which harm individuals and undermine derivatives markets. Fraud and market manipulation can steal customer funds, distort prices, disrupt orderly trading and settlement, and sap confidence in the fairness of our markets. Whistleblowers are a critical source of information which helps the Commission protect the integrity of our commodity markets.

I also want to emphasize that today's legislation does not spend any new money or create any new programs. Rather, it sets aside existing funds to meet existing obligations. S. 409 ensures that funds to support the functioning of the whistleblower and customer education offices are temporarily prioritized over the funds to pay whistleblower awards in order to keep the offices fully functional. In the end, both obligations will be fully met as Congress intended.

As the ranking member of the Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit Subcommittee, I feel a particular responsibility to make sure that the CFTC has the best tools at its disposal to meet its mission.

As we move forward in the coming months, I am looking forward to digging deeper into the work of the Commission and coming together to craft a responsible CFTC reauthorization bill which makes permanent improvements to the Whistleblower Office funding mechanism and meets the needs of the 21st century financial regulator.

I want to take a moment to thank Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson for their willingness to involve the whole committee in this legislative effort. As a new member of the committee, I appreciated the opportunity to act as a body in support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say simply that I am proud to support this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support

Madam Speaker, since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has protected American taxpayers from being complicit in the atrocity that is abortion on demand. And since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has been reauthorized on a bipartisan basis, signed into law by both Republican and Democrat Presidents, and supported by most Americans, until now, as President Biden's proposed budget eliminates it altogether.

Madam Speaker, we are treading in dangerous territory. Democrats have completely abandoned millions of pro-life Americans just like me, who vehemently oppose using taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. And even worse, they have done it for no other reason than to appease their own radical base.

President Biden said it best in 1994: ``Those of us who are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.'' And in 2006, he said: ``Won't support public funding of abortion.''

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 18 and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for organizing the Special Order this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in solidarity with the State of Israel. As the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel is among our greatest allies and friends.

Since the beginning, Israel has had two goals: to live as a Jewish state and to do so in peace.

This was true at its founding, and it remains true today.

But just as it has been throughout history, Israel again finds itself under attack, this time by Hamas terrorists, who, with the help of Iran, are bent on destroying the only Jewish state in the world.

Does Israel not have a right to defend itself?

Make no mistake, Hamas is not interested in peace. They want to destroy Israel and its people, and are willing to use women, children, and journalists as human shields to do so.

Some, including Members of this body, have taken to propaganda to paint Israel as the aggressor, but that is nothing more than cheap gaslighting. Israel is not now, nor have they ever been, an aggressor state. Its only actions have been in its own defense.

There is simply no moral equivalence between a nation defending itself and those who would use terrorism to annihilate the Jewish people. In fact, defeating this terrorism is a prerequisite for peace.

Mr. Speaker, these ongoing attacks are exactly why the United States must stand with our Israeli allies, condemn Hamas terrorists, and sanction those who provide them support. I call on all Members of this distinguished body to continue our long history of support for our Israeli allies.

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

Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule governing the consideration of the Fairness in Orphan Drug Exclusivity Act and the resolution to condemn the horrific shootings in Atlanta this past March.

I want to say right away that it is not the substance of these two bills to which I take exception; it is the process the majority is following or not following to move legislation forward.

The first bill in this rule is H. Res. 275, a resolution condemning the horrific shootings in Atlanta, Georgia, this past March. As Members of the House of Representatives, we unequivocally condemn violence and hate against any person or group of people. What happened in Atlanta is an unimaginable tragedy that must be denounced in no uncertain terms. I support the idea of the resolution, but not the way my colleagues in the majority are handling it.

The majority chose to circumvent the prescribed process for a resolution of this nature, bypassing the usual committee markup altogether and sidestepping an opportunity for the majority to address concerns from the minority and allow the House to speak with one unified voice.

That is not the way the people's House was intended to work, and it negatively affects both Members of this body and our constituents when we can't have the kind of discussion required on important pieces of legislation like this.

The other underlying bill, H.R. 1629, the Fairness in Orphan Drug Exclusivity Act, came before the House last week and failed to garner the two-thirds majority needed to pass on suspension after one of our Republican colleagues was left off the bill that he had long championed, left off the bill for an issue unrelated to the bill.

Again, I support H.R. 1629 and hope you will, too. But not only did the Democrats ignore the spirit of bipartisanship by which they claim to abide and block Republican Members from signing on to this bill, they did so by continuing to ram through bills without any respect for process, rules, or courtesy, which brings me to the extension of rule changes included in the resolution.

It has been 1 year since this body instituted martial law, as my friend and colleague Ranking Member Cole said during the Rules Committee hearing yesterday. While at the time there was certainly a need for changes to the rules to rapidly move legislation at the onset of the pandemic, the landscape has dramatically shifted, and we are more than ready to get back to normal.

Instead, more than 1 year later, we are still being governed by martial law in what has become the least transparent Congress ever. Democrats in the majority continue to chip away at the rights of the minority. Before we know it, those in the minority will have no rights left at all.

The majority of us in this body are fully vaccinated. The science says that fully vaccinated individuals can and should resume prepandemic behavior. So why won't the Democratic majority follow the science and resume regular order in this body?

It is the American people who are losing out, and it would behoove the Democratic majority to bring the time-tested processes and transparency back to this institution.

Madam Speaker, I do support the underlying bills. However, I have serious concerns over the continuance of measures in this rule that limit transparency and strip the minority's rights in this body. It is for this reason that I oppose the rule, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, if the issue that the majority has with reopening is related to vaccinations, I understand the majority claims that their side is 100 percent vaccinated. I would just say that if that is the case, science says they have nothing to worry about coming to the House floor or being in public. But that is not what this is all about. This is about the Speaker holding on to her slim and tenuous majority by any means necessary, even weaponizing the House rules to do so.

If we do defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of Representative Mast's H.R. 261, the Palestinian International Terrorism Support Prevention Act of 2021.

I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous materials, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, the Israelis are among our greatest allies and a critical strategic partner in the international fight against terrorism. Congressman Mast understands this better than most.

H.R. 261 sanctions foreign governments and persons who provide support for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mast), who represents the 18th Congressional District.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gimenez).

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.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to reiterate that while I do support the idea of the underlying bills, I do not support the way the Democrats are running the House.

The Democratic majority continues to move on bills with virtually no input from Republicans and continues to prioritize partisanship over the American people. We are making great progress with the pandemic and do not need to consider legislation in this manner. We have got this rule without a semblance of traditional process, and one of the resolutions contained in this rule was moved to the Rules Committee without any sort of markup, leaving the Members of this body without the means to make amendments or lodge their objections.

That is not the way this body should function. I urge the majority to make the necessary changes to restore regular order to the House of Representatives. I do not believe that it is a healthy nor respectful way to govern.

For this reason, I oppose this rule and urge my colleagues to oppose it as well.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me on this important Special Order on National Police Week.

Mr. Speaker, it is National Police Week, and I rise today to join my colleagues in support of the men and women of law enforcement.

We ask law enforcement to do an impossible job, and they do it with professionalism, compassion, and grace. Their days are spent putting themselves in harm's way to keep us safe, and they are always on call. For that alone, they deserve our gratitude.

But the men and women of law enforcement do so much more, and I want them to know that there are many of us who are not afraid to stand up and say that we support you. We see the sacrifices you make and the good that you do. We see the time that you spend away from your family and the emotional toll the job takes on you.

I think of my many friends and family who are police officers and the hard work that they do. They will always have a special place in my heart.

Even as the profession faces unprecedented scrutiny, the men and women of law enforcement still do their jobs with pride because, for them, it is about more than just a paycheck. It is about serving their neighbors.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting, not defunding, law enforcement. Let's take care of those who take care of us. Together, let's work on making our communities better.

To the men and women of law enforcement in Minnesota and around the country, thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from North Carolina for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Eliminate Barriers to Innovation Act. As the ranking member of the Commodity Exchanges, Energy, and Credit Subcommittee, I am looking forward to digging in on the many issues surrounding digital assets, particularly digital commodities.

Digitally native assets represent a new way for people to interact with each other and potentially organize productive activities. Whatever promise this innovative technology may hold, it will not be realized if it is subjected to outdated and unworkable regulations.

One of the great strengths our financial system in the U.S. has is that the rules are well-formed, longstanding, and fit for purpose. While we may argue about the details, the basic principles of the U.S. financial markets, and the rules which apply to legacy assets, are well understood.

Digital assets, on the other hand, present new challenges. While the principles won't change, the rules that bring those principles into effect may have to change.

This working group will give the CFTC, the SEC, and the market participants a critical venue to examine those principles and bring needed clarity to the application of existing rules on digital asset transactions.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1603 subjects H-2A employers to a private right of action in Federal court for the first time ever in the history of the H-2A program. The bill does so by applying the right of action standard in the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, or MSPA, to H-2A employers.

My motion to recommit today simply provides that when an H-2A employer faces an H-2A-related claim under the MSPA, the employer is provided a right to cure before the claim can proceed. Specifically, the amendment allows the employer to attempt to resolve the alleged violation within 5 days of receiving the complaint. The employer must also file with the court documentation demonstrating that the action giving rise to the complaint has been remedied. After that, the court may dismiss the complaint if it is satisfied that the complaint has been resolved.

Under H.R. 1603, private right of action can include actual damages or statutory damages of up to $500 per plaintiff per violation, where violations constitute separate provisions. Most claims involve multiple plaintiffs and, in class action, could involve many plaintiffs who didn't even want to be part of the claim. For class action, the court is authorized to award the lesser of up to $500 per plaintiff per violation or up to $500,000. In other words, liability under MSPA could be half a million dollars.

Especially in the case of a fabricated claim or an unintended violation, this could be financially devastating for farmers. Costs like these to agricultural employers on top of attorneys' fees, court fees, and awards pursuant to other claim avenues should be taken seriously. They can be significant burdens on employers who did not knowingly or purposefully violate H-2A requirements.

At the very least, we should allow our growers the opportunity to remedy a potential violation before they are hit with a huge penalty. Today's motion to recommit would do just that. If the purpose of filing a complaint is to seek redress, then this amendment provides a reasonable path forward.

I am sure that those whose purpose it is to subject employers to additional claims, frivolous or otherwise, will oppose my amendment, but those who understand the importance of helping U.S. farmers in the face of constant and growing competition from foreign agricultural operations without our high labor standards understand how reasonable a right to cure is.

Madam Speaker, my amendment would retain the ability of H-2A workers to obtain redress, but would provide important protection for growers, too.

Madam Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on the Judiciary to consider my amendment to H.R. 1603 to provide a commonsense right to cure for our Nation's farmers, who will be subject to burdensome litigation under this underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

H.J. Res. 17 is not a resolution to revive the equal rights amendment; it is

a messaging vehicle. That is why Democrats bypassed the Committee on the Judiciary and brought this resolution directly to the floor, a common theme for this majority. There was no process for this resolution, a resolution that Democrats claim is a priority. We are here today for a headline so the Democrats can say they supported the ERA when it was in the House.

But the fact is, Madam Speaker, that men and women in the United States are already equal under law. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution require as much, guaranteeing equal protection for all under the laws of this country. To me, the ERA is unnecessary, redundant, and divisive. The only thing it will do is empower the far- left special interest groups and lead to activist litigation.

Just last year, the head of Planned Parenthood declared: ``There is no equal rights for women without access to abortion, plain and simple.''

Or according to NARAL Pro-Choice America: ``With its ratification, the ERA would reinforce the constitutional right to abortion.''

Madam Speaker, we should take them at their word.

For years, groups like Planned Parenthood and others have advocated for adoption of the ERA so they can use it to pursue their pro-abortion agendas. If the ERA became law, it would allow these organizations to advance the radical policies through the courts without being in full view of the American people. These groups have hijacked the ERA and are seeking to use it as a tool to challenge States' pro-life laws.

But the reality is that this resolution is unconstitutional. Article V of the Constitution empowers Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate. After Congress proposes an amendment, the amendment is sent to the States for ratification. Three-fourths of the States must ratify the amendment in order for it to become effective.

The equal rights amendment was proposed in 1972. The amendment set an explicit deadline. It gave the States 7 years, until 1979, for ratification. Setting a deadline for ratification is part of Congress' authority to determine the mode of ratification under Article V.

In 1920, the Supreme Court held in Dillon v. Gloss that there was no doubt that Congress can set a date for ratifying an amendment. The deadline to ratify the ERA has long since passed, and the amendment fell short of the required number of States. When proposing a constitutional amendment, the deadline for ratification is just as important as the substance.

The District Court for D.C., less than 2 weeks ago, denied an effort by Virginia, Nevada, and Illinois to force the adoption of the ERA, despite the 1979 deadline. In denying the effort of those States, the courts said that a deadline for ratification still receives the assent of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and putting it in the resolving clause does not evade Article V's procedural requirements in any way.

Because setting a deadline takes a two-thirds vote of Congress, it would be absurd to say that changing that deadline requires anything less. If a simple majority of Congress could alter a proposed amendment after it has been sent to the States, the two-thirds requirement of Article V would be meaningless.

A partisan majority cannot rewrite a proposed amendment at will after there has been an agreement in Congress. However, that is just what H.J. Res. 17 and the Democrats propose to do.

The ERA expired in 1979, and this joint resolution is a legal fiction advanced for political purposes.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I oppose H.J. Res. 17. I believe that the speakers we have had here today on our side have agreed with that and made very, very effective points on why to oppose this resolution.

Men and women are already equal under the Constitution. This legislation would make us no more equal. It is merely a vehicle for the far-left's special interest groups to use to enact their pro-abortion agenda. It is unconstitutional. It is unnecessary. And it should not become law.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

The Violence Against Women Act was first signed into law almost 30 years ago with wide bipartisan support. The law recognizes that Federal laws covering domestic violence could help ease overburdened State and local criminal justice systems. It was narrowly defined and not controversial. Since its passage, it has been reauthorized on a bipartisan basis.

Unfortunately, in recent years, Democrats have politicized the law, straying further and further away from its original intent. This bill, H.R. 1620, is a continuation of the Democrats' politicization, expanding and altering the fundamental nature of the Violence Against Women Act.

The most significant change in this reauthorization effort is that it erases important distinctions between women and men. It replaces violence against ``women'' with ``a person of any gender,'' extending the law's protections well-past the narrowly defined and necessary protection for women.

This rewriting of the Violence Against Women Act not only undermines the original intent of this legislation, but also jeopardizes the safety and well-being of women at risk. It does more to advance the Democrats' progressive agenda than it does to protect women.

It is not just VAWA. The Democrats' entire radical agenda hurts women. Calls to defund, dismantle, and rethink local law enforcement hurt at-risk women. Never-ending government lockdowns that require battered and abused women to stay in violent households hurt women. A southern border open to dangerous drug cartels and human traffickers caused by President Biden's border crisis hurts women. In fact, the Democrats' open border policies incentivize women to make the dangerous trip to the U.S.-Mexico border on which one-third of women report being sexually abused.

Those are not the only problems with this legislation. H.R. 1620 also threatens Americans' constitutional right to religious freedom. The bill denies faith-based exemptions for VAWA grant recipients, prohibiting religious organizations from running shelters and legal aid centers on the basis of their sincerely held religious beliefs. The Democrats' culture war could actually force faith-based centers for abused women to close.

H.R. 1620 also expands the definition of domestic violence to include economic and emotional duress, pulling funding away from combating the severity of violent crimes.

This legislation disregards the well-being of women by promoting lofty concepts, such as restorative justice approaches to crimes against women, which are unproven and could force a woman to confront her abuser.

Democrats know that these are unnecessary additions that jeopardize the bipartisan reauthorization, so why are they choosing to proceed? Why are they putting forward this bill--with no hearings, no markups in this Congress--at the expense of women's safety and well-being?

Any crime or abuse against any single individual is abhorrent. State and Federal laws already protect individuals, women and men, from domestic violence and sexual abuse and any related reprehensible acts like dating violence and stalking. Resources should

be targeted to help those women and individuals cope and recover and also prevent further violence and abuse. This bill falls short of that goal and wildly distorts the original purpose of this law.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).

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 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 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 reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

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

Madam Speaker, I reiterate my opposition to H.R. 1620, the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

Democrats filled this legislation with politically charged, highly controversial provisions that dramatically expanded its scope, and erased the bipartisanship that originally passed this bill.

Many of those points were pointed out by the speakers on the Republican side, and unfortunately, it does nothing to address the problem of domestic violence, it threatens religious freedom and undermines the legislation's original intent.

Resources should be targeted to help women affected by the horrors of domestic abuse and help prevent further abuse. This bill does neither.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this en bloc amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I am also happy to see him back doing well. I appreciate that, and that we are here in the Chamber together.

Madam Speaker, we are here considering the rule for three controversial, divisive bills being moved forward by the majority with very little input from Republicans or the millions of Americans these bills will affect. Two of these bills are highly controversial gun control bills that undermine the constitutional right to bear arms.

H.R. 8, the so-called universal background check bill, would criminalize the private transfer of firearms. Combined with the restrictions already placed on private transfers during the pandemic, this makes it impossible for law-abiding gun owners to acquire or even borrow or lend firearms.

Universal background checks do not stop criminals. In fact, the majority of the criminals in State and Federal prisons who used a firearm during their offense got that firearm by stealing it, taking it from a family member or friend, or just an underground market. In 2013, the Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice researched universal background checks and determined that they would not be effective without additional restrictions on firearms.

The other gun control bill, the Charleston loophole bill, would permit the Federal Government to delay a firearm transfer indefinitely without any proof that the person is ineligible to possess a firearm. This bill undermines the ability for Americans to legally purchase a firearm, as it subjects firearm dealers to the mercy of the Federal bureaucracy.

Before we jump straight to this kind of constitutional overreach, it is important to remember that gun control legislation isn't going to stop criminals from gaining access to guns.

In the rural district I represent, many of my constituents are hunters, sportsmen, and law-abiding gun owners who utilize their Second Amendment rights. These bills undermine their ability to do so, and flies in the face of unity that has been promised by the President and Democrats.

Lastly, we are considering a bill that amounts to a union boss wish list that the majority is pushing, circumventing regular order and without input from the minority.

Madam Speaker, labor law must strike a balance--a careful balance between labor unions' rights to organize and employers' abilities to respond to these efforts. However, the PRO Act, a monumental rewrite of Federal labor law, will massively tip the scales in favor of unions, leaving employers and small businesses with massive costs and burdensome or vague legal standards.

Among the most egregious, a section of this bill is applying a one- size-fits-all standard for union contracts, rendering the franchise industry completely unviable by imposing a burdensome joint-employer Obama rule and requiring the disclosure of private information of employees to union organizers without their consent.

My great home State has a proud history of supporting organized labor, and I support employees' right to collective bargaining. However, this legislation before us today represents a misguided and unbalanced approached to labor law.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to think twice before supporting these bills that could permanently alter our job market and threaten our constitutional rights. I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my good friend and colleague from the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from

the 26th District of Texas (Mr. Burgess), who is another one of my colleagues on the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Fifth District of Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the First District of Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Third District of Florida (Mrs. Cammack).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Ninth District of Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama's Second District (Mr. Moore).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger).

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of Congresswoman Hinson's bill, H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, provides a safe and responsible path forward to reopen our schools and to get our students back in the classroom.

To speak further on the bill, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), my colleague.

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

Madam Speaker, the Centers for Disease Control has indicated schools can operate safely with students in the classroom, yet many schools across the country remain closed.

President Biden has chosen to side with political allies and big labor groups over scientists, and our students are being denied their right to a good education as a result.

Kids need to be in school, and we should follow the science and reopen the schools for in-person instruction now.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again: about to vote on a divisive bill being pushed through by the majority without any Republican input. Disguised as accountability, this bill hinders law enforcement's ability to do their jobs, limits the readiness of law enforcement, and demonizes an entire profession for the actions of a few.

A bill from my Minnesota colleague, Mr. Stauber, a former police officer himself, accomplishes many of the aims of this bill before us today, and has bipartisan support from the stakeholders involved; but Democrats rejected it, picking partisanship over real reform to help and improve law enforcement.

We do not deny there is work to be done, but the path to getting it done is working together to ensure that law enforcement developed the necessary tools to keep our communities safe and protect the rights of people they serve.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to work on a bill that will really help law enforcement and the citizens.