[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 78 (Tuesday, May 10, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H4764-H4771]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 903, RIGHTS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION 
     SECURITY ADMINISTRATION WORKFORCE ACT OF 2021; PROVIDING FOR 
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2499, FEDERAL FIREFIGHTERS FAIRNESS ACT OF 2022; 
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5129, COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK 
  GRANT MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2022; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
 H.R. 7691, ADDITIONAL UKRAINE SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2022; 
                         AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1097 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1097

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 903) to 
     enhance the security operations of the Transportation 
     Security Administration and stability of the transportation 
     security workforce by applying the personnel system under 
     title 5, United States Code, to employees of the 
     Transportation Security Administration who provide screening 
     of all passengers and property, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Homeland Security now printed 
     in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-40, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Homeland Security or their 
     respective designees; (2) the further amendments described in 
     section 2 of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution; and (4) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  After debate pursuant to the first section of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this 
     resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before the question is put 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the 
     chair of the Committee on Homeland Security or his designee 
     to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Homeland Security or their 
     respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question.
       Sec. 4.  All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 5.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2499) to amend 
     chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code, to create a 
     presumption that a disability or death of a Federal employee 
     in fire protection activities caused by any of certain 
     diseases is the result of the performance of such employees 
     duty, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Education and Labor now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 117-41, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part C of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their 
     respective designees; (2) the further amendments described in 
     section 6 of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc 
     described in section 7 of this resolution; and (4) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 6.  After debate pursuant to section 5 of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part D of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 7 of this 
     resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before the question is put 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 7.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to section 5 of this resolution for the chair of the 
     Committee on Education and Labor or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in part D of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their 
     respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question.
       Sec. 8.  All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part D of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in section 7 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 9.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5129) to amend 
     the Community Services Block Grant Act to reauthorize and 
     modernize the Act. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and Labor now printed in the bill, an amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 117-42, modified by the amendment printed in 
     part E of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     Labor or their respective designees; (2) the further 
     amendments described in section 10 of this resolution; (3) 
     the amendments en bloc described in section 11 of this 
     resolution; and (4) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 10.  After debate pursuant to section 9 of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part F of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 11 of this 
     resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before the question is put 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 11.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to section 9 of this resolution for the chair of the 
     Committee on Education and Labor or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in part F of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their 
     respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question.
       Sec. 12.  All points of order against the further 
     amendments printed in part F of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules or amendments en bloc described in section 11 of 
     this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 13.  House Resolution 1096 is hereby adopted.
       Sec. 14.  House Resolution 188, agreed to March 8, 2021 (as 
     most recently amended by House Resolution 1065, agreed to 
     April 28,

[[Page H4765]]

     2022), is amended by striking ``May 13, 2022'' each place it 
     appears and inserting (in each instance) ``June 10, 2022''.
       Sec. 15.  Notwithstanding clause 8 of rule XX, further 
     proceedings on a vote by the yeas and nays on the question of 
     adoption of a motion that the House suspend the rules offered 
     on the legislative day of May 10, 2022, or May 11, 2022, may 
     be postponed through the legislative day of May 18, 2022.
       Sec. 16.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7691) making 
     emergency supplemental appropriations for assistance for the 
     situation in Ukraine for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2022, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment printed 
     in part G of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
     The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 
     thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Sanchez). The gentleman from Maryland is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent that all 
Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported 
a rule, House Resolution 1097, providing for consideration H.R. 903, 
the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act under a structured rule. It 
provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security. It 
self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Thompson, makes in 
order eight amendments, and provides for one motion to recommit.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2499 and H.R. 5129 
under structured rules. It provides 1 hour of debate for each equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Education and Labor. It self-executes manager amendments 
from Chairman Scott to both bills. It makes in order 8 amendments and 
17 amendments respectively, and it provides for one motion to recommit 
for both bills.
  The rule provides en bloc authority to Chairmen Thompson and Scott.

                              {time}  1815

  Further, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7691, the 
Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, under a closed 
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from 
Chairwoman DeLauro and provides one motion to recommit.
  The rule also deems passage of H. Res. 1096, a resolution, 
Recognizing Congressional Workers' Right to Organize.
  The rule also provides recess instructions, suspension authority, and 
same-day authority through June 10.
  Finally, the rule postpones requested roll call votes on suspension 
bills considered on May 10 and May 11 through May 18.
  Madam Speaker, the rule contains five essential points of action.
  H.R. 903, the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act of 2021: This 
legislation seeks to afford TSA employees similar rights, protections, 
and benefits afforded to most other Federal workers across the country 
in order to improve the agency's operations, workforce retention, and 
morale.
  H.R. 2499 is the bipartisan Federal Firefighters Fairness Act of 
2022. This legislation establishes a science-based list of diseases for 
which an automatic presumption of work-related illness would apply for 
Federal firefighters who get sick, provided that they are employed in 
fire protection activities for at least 5 years. It also establishes a 
process for adding other diseases based on scientific data and analysis 
going forward.
  H.R. 5129 is the bipartisan Community Services Block Grant 
Modernization Act of 2022. It reauthorizes and improves the popular and 
effective community services block grant program to help reach even 
more Americans, provide more community development across the country, 
and further reduce poverty.
  The rule also contains a resolution recognizing the right of 
congressional staff to unionize.
  Finally, it includes H.R. 7691, the Additional Ukraine Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, 2022. Madam Speaker, generations to come will look 
back at this moment to ask: What did our generation do when Vladimir 
Putin and his army invaded the sovereign nation of Ukraine and tried 
not only to crush its democracy and violate the spirit of its people 
but vaporize and annex the entire nation?
  Well, today, let future generations observe the Biden administration 
and a bipartisan Congress has not only already provided more than $4 
billion in security assistance to Ukraine, almost all of it coming 
after the February 24 invasion, but today, we are voting to provide 
nearly $40 billion to address the immediate and near-term security, 
economic, and humanitarian needs of the Ukrainian people that are 
urgent and desperate.
  We will provide $6 billion for training, equipment, weapons, 
logistics support, supplies, salaries and stipends, and intelligence 
support; $4.35 billion in emergency food assistance, medical equipment, 
and other humanitarian aid; and billions more for humanitarian relief 
for the millions of refugees displaced by Putin's violence and 
bombardment of communities in Ukraine.
  The aid that we vote on today will come with the fervent solidarity, 
admiration, and love of the American people. We are in awe of President 
Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian people, and their army. They have been hanging 
tough against terrible odds and terrible violence in a splendid display 
of democratic patriotism for their country. Their resolve is heroic, 
and it is breathtaking to behold.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank the Representative, Mr. 
Raskin, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Today, we are here to discuss a rule providing for consideration of 
H.R. 903, the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act; H.R. 5129, the 
Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022; and H.R. 
2499, the Federal Firefighters Fairness Act, which would provide needed 
benefits to firefighters and other Federal workers suffering from 
occupation-related diseases and simplifies the process of providing 
care and benefits for these workers to ensure they will not be caught 
up in bureaucratic red tape. Finally, the rule provides for 
consideration of a supplemental appropriation to Ukraine to ensure that 
they have the necessary funds to counter Russian aggression.
  The community services block grant, or CSBG, aims to reduce poverty 
by improving economic security for low-income individuals and creating 
economic opportunities in their communities. This program has not been 
updated since 1998 and is in dire need of reform, but H.R. 5129 fails 
to accomplish that goal.
  It continues to let States set the benchmarks for progress and allows 
ineffective programs to continue receiving taxpayer dollars.
  It increases the income thresholds to 200 percent above the Federal 
poverty line, stretching Federal resources thinner and effectively 
robbing those most in need of help.
  It allows grantees to use their facilities for voter registration, 
completely distracting from the program's goal to fight poverty and 
risking the introduction of partisan activity into nonpartisan efforts.
  Worst of all, this bill cuts existing protections for faith-based 
charities. Without these protections, organizations that have fought 
poverty for years could be forced to remove their faithful beliefs from 
their work if they

[[Page H4766]]

want to continue providing important poverty relief. Why would we want 
to limit the number of organizations participating in this cause?
  H.R. 903, the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act, has so many flaws, I 
don't have time to mention them all. This bill goes against Congress' 
intent when it enacted the Aviation and Transportation Security Act to 
create the Transportation Security Administration, or the TSA, in 
November 2001 following the 9/11 terror attacks.

  At the time, Congress recognized the importance of providing unique 
authorities to ensure that TSA could carry out its national security 
mission. Converting all 60,000 TSA employees into title 5 would limit 
that flexibility.
  Under ATSA, the agency may exercise one-step removal for serious 
offenses such as intentional security breaches, theft, failure of drug 
and alcohol tests while on duty, or arrests for certain criminal 
offenses. Under H.R. 903, an employee who knowingly allows guns or 
explosives through a security checkpoint may no longer be immediately 
fired.
  Furthermore, under this bill, matters of national security could be 
negotiable under collective bargaining negotiations. The flexibility 
that Congress intended for TSA would allow for the imposition of, for 
example, enhanced screening procedures based on credible threats. Under 
this bill, the implementation of new security requirements could be 
subject to negotiation with the union.
  If the national security implications are not enough, how about the 
fact that TSA employees could actually lose benefits under this bill? 
If H.R. 903 becomes law, employees could lose the ability to trade 
shifts with one another, donate leave to their colleagues, and receive 
certain incentive pay. Some overtime pay would be prohibited, and 
current career milestone bonuses could no longer be offered.
  Finally, this bill forces employees to unionize under AFGE 
specifically so employees wouldn't even get to choose their labor 
representation. This bill does not allow for an intervening union 
election and would require the DHS Secretary to consult with AFGE on 
leave benefits, additional pay, and incentives and bonuses for all TSA 
employees, now a 60,000-person workforce.
  Everyone here, I am sure, is thankful for TSA and wants their 
employees to be satisfied with their working conditions. But that is a 
question of Congress prioritizing for that purpose, not an inflexible, 
forced unionization to appease the majority's base.
  I urge my colleagues to heed the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon 
Panel, a bipartisan group of former officials that strongly recommended 
against moving TSA personnel under title 5.
  Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule and ask Members to do the same. I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).
  Ms. SPANBERGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
important legislation of which I am a cosponsor and intend to vote for.
  Firefighters are routinely exposed to high stress, smoke, heat, and 
various toxic substances. As a result, they are far more likely to 
contract cardiovascular disease, lung disease, and cancer than other 
workers.
  I strongly support extending workers' compensation to America's 
Federal civilian firefighters as we will do with the Federal 
Firefighter Fairness Act, but I want to use this opportunity to call on 
House leadership and the Veterans' Affairs Committee to bring forward 
another related bill, the Michael Lecik Military Firefighters 
Protection Act.
  I strongly support extending workers' compensation to our civilian 
firefighters, but we must extend the same benefits to our military 
firefighters. Not doing so would be nothing short of a dereliction of 
our sacred duty to them.
  One such military firefighter was Michael Lecik, an Air Force 
firefighter. He deployed twice to the Middle East, and after coming 
home to central Virginia some years later, Mike was diagnosed with 
multiple myeloma, a blood cancer linked to the dangerous conditions of 
his service as a military firefighter, a connection we are 
acknowledging for Federal firefighters with our votes for the Federal 
Firefighters Fairness Act.
  While I am grateful that we are moving this bill forward, I am deeply 
concerned and disappointed that we are not remedying this issue for the 
brave servicemembers like Mike who had similar exposures.
  Mike died in March 2021 at the age of 41, leaving behind a loving 
wife and three school-age daughters. As he faced down his illness, he 
worked and advocated to ensure that other military firefighters would 
have their service-connected illnesses recognized.
  In his honor and in service to military firefighters like him, I will 
continue to work to ensure an acknowledgment of harm is extended to all 
affected populations, including veterans dying from cancer without any 
acknowledgment of their service-connected injury.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
Representative from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota 
for yielding.
  This Ukraine supplemental in this rule authorizes an additional $40 
billion to provide defense articles and services, humanitarian aid, and 
financial support.
  I do believe it is important that Western countries continue to 
support Ukraine in its fight against its barbaric aggressors, but 
honestly, do we not deserve a plan? Does the administration not need to 
come to us with where we are going with this?
  This is an additional $40 billion on top of the several billion 
dollars that have already been spent. It is not that I object to the 
money. I object to not understanding how the administration is 
proceeding with this.
  Look, it was just 10 months ago that we were all on a conference call 
with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the 
Secretary of Homeland Security. They assured us that the government in 
Afghanistan was solid, and they were going to be okay. At the same 
time, we are all getting alerts on our phones that the government in 
Afghanistan is headed for the exits with all of our money.
  Then it was October of this year with the clear signs that Vladimir 
Putin was amassing on the borders around Ukraine, and there was no 
solid discussion about whether or not this was important for the United 
States and whether or not we should do anything to counteract that.

                              {time}  1830

  Indeed, there were approvals for some transfer of weaponry, but it 
was slow to get there. Then the President made the unfortunate 
statement that a small incursion would perhaps be okay. The same 
Secretary of Defense and the same Secretary of State told us that this 
all would likely be over in 3 days' time, but they didn't take into 
account the nationality, the spirit of President Zelenskyy and his 
countrymen, who said: No, this is not going to happen in our country.
  Look, none of us can predict the future, but truly the Biden 
administration really does need to justify the use of American 
resources as this conflict unfolds.
  Is there a plan for when this supplemental funding runs out?
  Will the United States defense production keep up with Ukrainian 
demand?
  Who is keeping count on the number of Stingers and Javelin missiles 
that are leaving our stockpiles that should be defending our homeland? 
Are we depleting those so severely that we wouldn't be able to respond 
should we need to?
  Are we providing resources that will give Ukraine an asymmetric 
advantage to eventually win this war? If we are not doing that, how 
long are we going to ask the American people to continue to fund the 
status quo?
  Look, Russia advancing beyond Ukraine's borders into NATO territory 
would almost certainly also draw the United States into a war in 
Europe. But let me stress: That is a war in Europe. Where is the rest 
of Europe in this? We all want to prevent that outcome. We cannot let 
Vladimir Putin create this new world order in which he is the new 
tyrant of the world. To defeat him, we have to be united in our goals, 
united in the expenditure of American resources in support of those

[[Page H4767]]

goals, and we have to have a plan that we are confident is being 
followed.
  It is not lost on me that this amount of money that we are asking to 
appropriate in an emergency fashion today is exactly one-half of the 
dollar amount of the weaponry that was abandoned in Afghanistan, 
abandoned to our enemies. Let's not find ourselves in that situation 
again.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman asks us to justify the use of American 
resources in supporting our democratic allies in Ukraine.
  How would we justify the use of these resources?
  Well, let's start with this. The Ukrainian people and President 
Zelenskyy have asked for our help. They have asked for these resources, 
and they need these resources in order to beat back a brutal, bloody, 
and illegal innovation by Vladimir Putin, who is violating the laws of 
war on a daily basis.
  They have killed thousands of civilians, they have killed more than 
150 children, murdering them, and his Army is raping and killing women, 
leaving their corpses in the street.
  So we have a democracy trying to defend its sovereign borders against 
an autocrat who wants to rebuild the Russian empire, Vladimir Putin, 
the former chief of the KGB, who said that the greatest catastrophe of 
the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union.
  We were hoping that we would have a unanimous, bipartisan statement 
today in favor of aid to the besieged people of Ukraine. Instead, we 
get more voices of defeatism, pessimism, and gloom.
  We have heard it before. We heard Representative Cawthorn who said: 
Remember that Zelenskyy is a thug, remember that the Ukrainian 
Government is incredibly corrupt, and is incredibly evil and has been 
pushing woke ideologies.
  We heard from Steve Bannon who said: No Republican should vote for 
any money for Ukraine, zero dollars for Ukraine.
  We are hearing it from other candidates around the country, J.D. 
Vance, who says: I have got to be honest with you; I don't really care 
what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.
  Madam Speaker, the democratic world is under siege by Vladimir Putin 
and his filthy army, which is murdering children, raping women, killing 
civilians. Which side are we on?
  The Biden administration is rallying the democratic world, rallying 
the NATO countries. We should be standing on a unanimous, bipartisan 
basis with the people of Ukraine.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, 
which includes the resolution I introduced to provide House staff legal 
protection to organize and bargain collectively.
  First, a big thank you to Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Whip 
Clyburn, and committee chairs Lofgren and Scott for working with me to 
get this legislation across the finish line and a big thank you to the 
majority of Democrats for cosponsoring this resolution.
  It feels surreal, and also completely right, to be here at this 
critical moment. I have spent much of my career helping workers form 
unions and bargain collectively. The power of workers to unite and 
demand fair wages, better benefits, and safer working conditions was 
central to the creation of the American middle class, and it is 
essential right now for working families simply trying to get by.
  That is why I was humbled when congressional staffers approached me 
earlier this year and asked me to introduce a resolution that would 
grant them a fundamental human right, the right to organize and bargain 
collectively without fear of retaliation.
  For months now, our workers have been organizing in the shadows, 
because they lack the legal protections to come forward. It should not 
and does not have to be this way for workers seeking to exercise their 
First Amendment right to freedom of association, especially here in the 
Halls of Congress.
  I fervently believe that all workers deserve the chance to have a 
union and to be protected in pursuing one. This resolution approves 
regulations originally proposed in 1996, 26 years ago. Those 
regulations provide guidance for how legislative branch employees can 
exercise their statutory right to form or join labor organizations, as 
Congress expressly intended.

  I can say without a doubt that here in the people's House, we could 
not serve our districts without the hard work and dedication of 
congressional staff. They manage our schedules, advise on policy, 
engage with constituents, and do so much more essential work with 
humility, with grit, and often with little to no recognition.
  These same workers have endured trauma while providing public 
service, working through a global pandemic that has killed a million 
people in this country, and experiencing an assault on our very 
workplace on January 6, 2021.
  The very least we can do is honor and respect their effort to 
organize in Congress, giving them the long-overdue right to find their 
collective voice. This resolution will protect bargaining over working 
conditions, wages, just-cause provisions, and more. We have heard 
loudly and clearly over the past few months: Congressional staffers 
want a union. Let's not make them wait a second longer.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).
  Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
Ukrainian supplemental bill.
  Madam Speaker, $40 billion, but there is no baby formula for American 
mothers and babies.
  An unknown amount of money to the CIA in the Ukraine supplemental 
bill, but there is no formula for American babies and mothers.
  Madam Speaker, $54 million in COVID spending in Ukraine, but there is 
no formula for American babies and mothers.
  Madam Speaker, $900 million for nonprofits and organizations in 
Ukraine, but there is no formula for American babies and mothers.
  Madam Speaker, $8.7 billion for economic support and funding in 
Ukraine, but there is no formula for American mothers and babies.
  If this is about claiming that it is about saving lives, let's be 
real, then we would care about war-torn countries like Ethiopia. So 
that is a bunch of hypocrisy, because I never hear Ethiopia brought up 
here. Totally ignoring our own border crisis, our own baby formula 
crisis, and brutal inflation, skyrocketing gas prices that no one can 
afford, but $40 billion for Ukraine?
  Stop funding regime change and money laundering scams and U.S. 
politician coverups of their crimes in countries like Ukraine. The 
American people do not support paying for constant U.S. involvement in 
foreign affairs while our own government fails our own country.
  Let me remind everyone here: We swore an oath to uphold and defend 
the Constitution of the United States of America and our borders. We 
should be paying attention to our country right now.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, here is a formula for the destruction of 
democracy: Repeating Putin's propaganda and disinformation and 
appeasing imperialist assaults on sovereign nations.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. Jayapal).
  Ms. JAYAPAL. Madam Speaker, workers' rights are human rights. The 
labor movement has shown us what is possible when we dream big and 
fight hard. Tonight, we will clear yet another hurdle in the battle for 
workplace safety and dignity.
  I thank my colleague, Representative Levin, for his tremendous 
leadership on this resolution. With House Resolution 915, congressional 
staff will be able to organize and bargain for a better workplace 
without fear of intimidation or retaliation.
  As someone who organized with unions, working people, and for 
collective bargaining rights before coming to Congress, I know how 
important it is that we guarantee our staff that same

[[Page H4768]]

right. As a co-lead of the PRO Act, I have continuously pushed for pro-
worker policies that prioritize safety, equity, and better pay. Like 
other workers, congressional staff deserve to be protected at work. 
They put in long, hard hours. They work incredibly hard to serve the 
people.
  We must lead by example and show our gratitude by ensuring our staff 
have the right to bargain, to organize, and to unionize.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to immediately consider a bill that would block the Biden 
administration's effort to establish a so-called Disinformation 
Governance Board.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record along with any extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, policing of the First Amendment 
protected speech has no place in this country. Yet, the Biden 
administration, unsatisfied with their big tech and their mainstream 
media allies' efforts to control criticism of their disastrous agenda, 
have decided to propose a government-sanctioned, taxpayer-funded 
ministry of truth. This not only runs contrary to the values of our 
Nation but is likely unconstitutional and Congress should play no part 
in its creation. In fact, Congress should come together to uphold the 
constitutional principles that the best weapon against speech we don't 
like is not censure; it is more speech.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Katko) to further speak on the amendment.
  Mr. KATKO. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the previous 
question and in support of the immediate consideration of legislation 
introduced by Leader McCarthy and House Republicans to defund and 
prohibit the activities of the Biden administration's Disinformation 
Governance Board at the Department of Homeland Security. That is right: 
It is called the Disinformation Governance Board.
  The notion that this ill-conceived effort will improve Americans' 
trust in their government is fundamentally absurd. In fact, it is just 
the latest example of how this administration, and specifically 
leadership at the Department of Homeland Security, remains grossly out 
of touch with what issues matter most to the American people.
  At a time when the border is in a state of crisis and more Americans 
than ever before are being fatally poisoned with fentanyl, everyone in 
this room and in this country would be wise to take note that this, a 
Disinformation Governance Board, is what your Department of Homeland 
Security is focused on.

                              {time}  1845

  Are they focused on combating the drug cartels and human traffickers 
that are profiting from the chaos at our southwest border? Apparently 
not.
  Are they focused on improving our economic security and resilience 
against unprecedented threats from China, Russia, and others? It 
doesn't seem like it.
  Madam Speaker, as ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, 
I witnessed firsthand the consistent lack of transparency demonstrated 
by Secretary Mayorkas and the Department of Homeland Security when 
faced with congressional oversight and legitimate requests for 
information on the department's mission.
  Why on Earth would we trust the same department to now unilaterally 
expand their mission and decide for us, the public, what is or is not 
the truth? Why has the Department of Homeland Security been unable or 
unwilling to answer basic questions as to the functions, remit, or 
charter of this board when asked by Congress?
  If the Biden administration was serious about making the board 
apolitical, as they claim they are, why have they opted to appoint 
known partisan operatives as its executive director and co-chairs? In 
fact, it is reported that the named executive director herself has 
promoted now-debunked claims on social media. Think about that. The 
person that they claim to be the executive director is now the one that 
has in the past herself engaged in disinformation. That is pretty 
ironic.
  I ask you, Madam Speaker, and my colleagues across the aisle, where 
is the accountability for this misguided operation? With this vote, we 
have the opportunity to send a clear message: This administration 
should focus on restoring our national security, not making itself the 
arbiter of truth and speech. This is America, this isn't a Communist 
country.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Raskin for the time, 
and I thank Mr. Levin for what he has done to bring this resolution to 
fruition.
  Madam Speaker, today I rise to defend the rights of our staff to 
organize. This really is about respect. We should respect their rights: 
Their right to have a decent day's pay for a hard day's work, their 
right to have the best healthcare that we can afford.
  I respect them, I support them, and I respect the right of all 
workers to organize. Hence, I will vote for the legislation.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the 
previous question so that we can immediately consider H.R. 7690 to 
defund the Biden administration's recently announced Disinformation 
Governance Board.
  Madam Speaker, the Biden administration's decision to create this 
board is dystopian in design and should be doomed right from the start.
  Madam Speaker, the Disinformation Governance Board should be defunded 
for one obvious reason. It is not only Orwellian, as everyone has said, 
but it is clearly unconstitutional. In America, we don't allow 
bureaucrats and government officials to choose what speech is deemed 
acceptable or censor and silence viewpoints they dislike.
  This fundamental principle of our law must always be vigorously 
defended to preserve our freedom and to keep the government in check. I 
used to defend this principle in the Federal courts before I was 
elected to Congress, and I am so encouraged to work with so many 
colleagues, at least on this side of the aisle here, who are also 
fiercely committed to this cause.
  Let's put this simply: There is zero role for the Federal Government 
in determining what constitutes true speech. But while we have 
everybody's attention, let's just recap this real quickly.
  This Disinformation Governance Board will be housed within the 
Department of Homeland Security. It was just announced by ambush, very 
abruptly, by Secretary Mayorkas. There is no information about its 
budget. There is no information provided to us about the scope of its 
work, no information about how it will be kept accountable. Basically, 
there are no details at all. Remember, this is from the same 
administration that wants to spy on parents who speak up at school 
board meetings and spy on our bank accounts. This governance board is a 
glaring example of mission creep, and even its name is creepy.
  Here is what we do know, Madam Speaker: The board is supposed to be 
headed by a young woman by the name of Nina Jankowicz, who refers to 
herself--no kidding--as the Mary Poppins of disinformation.
  Miss Poppins is herself a frequent purveyor of untruths, such as 
calling the New York Post's report on Hunter Biden's laptop a ``Russian 
influence op'' and promoting the false claim that the Steele dossier 
was ``Republican opposition research.'' She also appears sympathetic to 
the cause of censorship because she told NPR recently that she 
shudders--that is her word--to think about a country where free speech 
absolutists, again quoting her, were taking over more platforms. She 
recommended that law enforcement and legislatures do more to censor 
Americans.
  To help her hit the ground running in doing what is certain to be a 
short stint in this job, here is what we suggest: She ought to check 
out the recent

[[Page H4769]]

falsehoods from her own administration.
  Here is a hit list:
  The falsehood that Secretary Mayorkas has done an ``effective job'' 
managing the border crisis and that it is somehow secure. He said that 
under oath here a couple weeks ago.
  The falsehood that economic contraction in Quarter 1 of this year is 
actually just masking some hidden, broad economic resiliency.
  The falsehood that Biden's $3.5 trillion spending bill actually cost 
zero dollars.
  The falsehood that inflation is a high-class problem, as they told 
us.
  The falsehood that 70 percent of our current inflation is being 
caused by Vladimir Putin.

  You get the point.
  The problem with the government appointing itself as the arbiter of 
truth is that it is often the government itself that often engages in 
spin and untruth.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, if the Biden administration 
was itself a beacon of truth, this board would still be 
unconstitutional. I would tell my colleagues, if this was being 
proposed by a Republican administration, we would be fighting it just 
as vociferously.
  I do find it noteworthy, however, that those who seem the most 
preoccupied with censoring Americans and policing disinformation are so 
often themselves the worst offenders at spreading it.
  Again, here is the bottom line: The government has no role whatsoever 
in determining what constitutes truth or acceptable speech.
  President Biden should dissolve this board immediately and entirely; 
and if he won't, Republicans will.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we 
may amend the rule to provide for immediate consideration of my 
legislation to defund the DHS Disinformation Governance Board.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, tonight we stand with courageous 
Ukrainians who refuse to give in to Putin's war crimes.
  The morning after this unprovoked attack, I authored the first 
sanctions legislation in this Congress. Eventually, it may help. But 
what is needed immediately is more weapons and humanitarian relief.
  Undoubtedly, Putin was encouraged by those he hoped would divide the 
West, like his admirer President Trump, who declared Putin ``a genius'' 
and called this ``a peacekeeping mission,'' and his close adviser who, 
even after the bombing got underway, claimed that Putin was being too 
gentle.
  With our weapons, Ukrainians defend not only themselves, but freedom 
and democracy everywhere. Tonight, I hope that Republicans will join 
Democrats in what is truly a test of our commitment to freedom. 
Together, we offer strong support for Ukraine to push back on the 
brutal aggressor, end this terror, and maintain its independence.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).
  Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question 
so that we can immediately consider H.R. 7690.
  Madam Speaker, the Biden regime wants to talk disinformation? Okay, 
let's give them something to talk about.
  Let's talk about how the White House said that it was Republicans 
that want to defund the police.
  Let's talk about how Secretary Mayorkas said the southern border is 
closed.
  Let's talk about how Joe Biden said his Build Back Better agenda cost 
zero American tax dollars.
  Let's talk about how Biden's new press secretary falsely claimed 
Trump stole the 2016 Presidential election.
  And remember Afghanistan? Let's talk about how Joe Biden said any 
American who wants to come home, we will get you home. Well, that 
sounds like the words of a lying, dog-faced pony soldier to me.
  The American people will not have their speech monitored by corrupt, 
career professional politicians who lie day in and day out.
  And now the DHS, a militarized department, has established a new 
Disinformation Governance Board, or more accurately known as the 
department of propaganda. DHS was created to stop terrorism. Now it is 
being used to terrorize the American people.
  And who did Mayorkas hire to run this Orwellian ministry of truth? 
This lady, Nina Jankowicz. Mayorkas calls her an expert on 
disinformation, probably because she tells lies all the dang time. Nina 
said that President Trump would embolden ISIS. Well, he defeated it. 
Nina said the Hunter Biden laptop from hell was a Trump campaign 
product. Nina said that concerned parents who wanted a say in their 
children's education were pushing disinformation; and Nina said Big 
Tech should censor the Wuhan lab leak theory because it was, you 
guessed it, disinformation.
  Nina doesn't seem to have a good relationship with truth and will 
surely use this board to silence Americans. Nina is no public servant. 
How is that, you say? Don't take it from me. Here are her words. Are 
these the words of a public servant? What do I need to do to--well, 
Madam Speaker, I will let you read the rest of that. This doesn't sound 
like someone who should be monitoring Americans' speech.
  The Democratic Party has truly lost their minds, from intimidating 
judges at their homes, burning down pregnancy centers, and vandalizing 
churches, to calling moms and dads domestic terrorists, and now 
creating this department to censor free speech because extremists are 
scared of, what, Elon Musk?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. BOEBERT. They say social media censoring doesn't go far enough. 
And this needs to be defunded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is no longer recognized.
  Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward 
the President while speaking on the floor of the House.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, the very distinguished gentlewoman from 
Colorado called the President of the United States, or likened him to, 
I think she said, a lying, dog-faced pony soldier.
  We obviously could have taken those words down, but we have serious 
business to do here, and unlike some of our colleagues on the other 
side, we are not interested in censoring other people's speech. We want 
the whole world to see how the gentlewoman from Colorado speaks in 
public as a Member of Congress. We want everyone to look at that.
  Meantime, we have come here tonight, Madam Speaker, to fight for the 
rights of the TSA workforce. More than 50,000 workers. We are giving 
them the same rights that other Federal workers have. We came here to 
fight for the rights of Federal firefighters, tens of thousands of 
them, who will be able to benefit from this legislation if and when 
they get sick from illnesses caused by their work as firefighters.
  We came here to expand and improve the Community Services Block Grant 
Modernization Act of 2022, a bipartisan piece of legislation. Despite 
what was said about it on the other side, I believe there were eight 
Members of the minority who voted for it in the House Education and 
Labor Committee.
  We are here to recognize the right of congressional staff to 
unionize, and we are here most significantly, Madam Speaker, on the 
Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act.
  It is for that act that the antics and the diatribes of our 
colleagues are so profoundly disappointing to those of us who have come 
here to support President Zelenskyy and the heroic people of Ukraine 
who are resisting a brutal, illegal aggression by Vladimir Putin and 
his army.

                              {time}  1900

  And we were hoping that we would have a bipartisan, unanimous support 
for this legislation to render the military and strategic economic and 
humanitarian aid that our democratic allies need, and they are asking 
for and deserve, to fight off this illegal criminal aggression by 
Vladimir Putin, who is not a genius but a war criminal and a mass 
murderer. That is what he is.

[[Page H4770]]

  We are very proud of the work that President Biden has been doing in 
unifying the democratic world against the autocrat Vladimir Putin and 
his naked, bloody aggression against the people of Ukraine, which has 
cost the lives of thousands of civilians already. We have seen the war 
crime of rape spread at the hands of Russian's filthy soldiers, and we 
have seen them kill children, blow up schools and hospitals.
  We don't see anything remotely like the seriousness and the solemnity 
that we would expect of Members of the United States Congress. Instead, 
they put up profanity, they mock the President of the United States, 
they make a disgrace of their own party by the way they behave on the 
floor of the House of Representatives.
  Madam Speaker, Vladimir Putin and his cheerleaders all over the world 
thought they would make quick work of the people of Ukraine and 
President Zelenskyy. They only had supplies for less than a week. 
Everybody thought it was just going to be game over, as some of our 
colleagues have said; that Vladimir Putin would just cut right through 
them.
  But you know what they weren't counting on, Madam Speaker? They 
weren't counting on the spirit of a democratic people, the noble people 
of Ukraine who have heroically resisted every criminal aggressive act 
by Vladimir Putin and his autocratic cheerleaders around the world.
  So today, 2\1/2\ months later, President Biden, having rallied the 
democratic world, having unified NATO, comes back to us and asks for 
nearly $40 billion in aid to support the strategic needs, the security 
needs, the economic needs, the humanitarian needs of a population that 
is reeling from the war.
  Madam Speaker, we say the American people are here to support the 
Ukrainian people. That is what we are doing here tonight.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members that remarks 
in debate may not engage in personalities toward the President, 
including by repeating remarks made elsewhere that would be improper if 
spoken in the Member's own words.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).
  Mr. PFLUGER. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so 
that we can immediately consider H.R. 7690 to DEFUND the Biden's 
Administration DHS Disinformation Governance Board.
  However, before I get into that, I would remind my colleague that 
just a couple months ago, that the administration did offer a ride to 
President Zelenskyy, offered him a ride out of Ukraine to leave the 
country that he so valiantly has been fighting for. I want to make sure 
that that is set straight. And we will get back to the business at 
hand: The Disinformation Governance Board.
  The fact is that the administration thinks that they should be 
policing disinformation. It is beyond alarming. And I am trying to put 
myself back into the shoes of the Founders 240 years ago, to think that 
the government would be in charge of personal views of the First 
Amendment.
  The antics, as it has been called here, my 750,000-plus constituents 
don't think what I am saying right now are antics. What they are proud 
of is we are standing up to say that we do affirm that the government 
does not get to determine what is true and false.
  Personally, I have heard the Secretary of Homeland Security, 
Mayorkas, claim that our border is secure, but millions of illegal 
immigrants are allowed to pour into our country, including known and 
suspected terrorists. Even more disturbing, is that Secretary Mayorkas 
has put an outspoken partisan person, who has mocked stories, including 
those about Hunter Biden's laptop, has praised the now-debunked Steele 
dossier, and other stories out into the public, while claiming to now 
be the purveyor of truth. The lack of credibility and the 
misinformation is beyond laughable.
  The Department of Homeland Security should be focused on one thing, 
and this is not a partisan issue. It is our security. It is our 
Nation's security. That is what DHS was founded on after September 11. 
That is what the focus should be on right now, not fact-checking social 
media or censoring Americans.
  Today, every Member of Congress will be put on Record, and the 
question will be: Do you stand on the side of free speech or not?
  I stand on the side of free speech for my constituents, the 750,000 
who I believe would not call what I am saying antics.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Our colleagues don't seem to want to talk about the chaos and the 
violence and the bloodshed that has been unleashed on the people of 
Ukraine. I am really shocked that they don't want to talk about it, but 
they want to talk about free speech.
  Great. Let's talk about free speech in Russia.
  More than 15,000 people arrested and detained as they crush the 
antiwar movement in Russia, as he jails political opponents in Russia. 
And they haven't said a word about that.
  Have they said anything about the opponents of the war in Russia who 
have been thrown into jail? No.
  They are talking about a board in America that I wasn't even aware 
existed--I am not sure it does--that has never thrown anybody in a 
jail.
  How do they feel about Russian critics of the war being thrown into 
jail? How do they feel about more than 8 million Ukrainians who have 
been displaced by the war, who are living in the homes of the Polish 
people who have heroically opened their doors to them? They say nothing 
about that.
  Do they think that Vladimir Putin is the leader of a democracy?
  Is there any one of them who will stand up and say that Vladimir 
Putin is an autocrat, an authoritarian, a would-be totalitarian?
  Do any of them remember that Vladimir Putin was the head of the KGB?
  Is that their ideal model for civil liberties? Vladimir Putin, who 
said that the collapse of the Soviet Union is the greatest catastrophe 
of the 20th century?
  Is this Abraham Lincoln's party we are hearing today? Or is it a cult 
of Donald Trump?
  Madam Speaker, we have to decide which side America is going to be 
on. The democratic world has risen as one to support the people of 
Ukraine, and yet, our friends don't seem to want to talk about that. 
They don't want to seem to support this effort, which is extraordinary 
to me, as the people of Ukraine are doing whatever they can to fight 
this naked, illegal aggression, this unilateral war of aggression; 
unprovoked, unjustified, a violation of international law in every way.
  Madam Speaker, it is incumbent upon us as the leader of the 
democratic world, if that is still what we want to be, to support 
democracies under attack by authoritarian regimes.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland talked about 
protecting this institution or talked about this institution, but we 
have a $40 billion bill at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. I haven't had a 
chance to review the bill. My staff is poring over the pages to try to 
see what's in it.
  You want to talk about the institution? You want to talk about 
standing up alongside Ukraine?
  Why don't we actually have a debate on the floor of the people's 
House instead of the garbage of getting a $40 billion bill at 3 o'clock 
in the afternoon; not paid for, without having any idea what is really 
in it, with a massive slush fund that goes to the State Department--$13 
billion; $8 billion for the Economic Support Fund, $110 million for 
embassy security.
  We got $40 billion that is unpaid for, and you want to sit here and 
lecture this body about what we are going to do or not do about 
standing alongside Ukraine?
  Why don't we talk about the American people who are hurting, the 
wide-open borders; the inflation that is killing people; the jobs that 
people can't get because of the cost of goods and services in this 
country.
  Sitting here and being lectured to, when I don't even have time to 
look at a $40 billion unpaid bill.

[[Page H4771]]

  

                          ____________________