[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 190 (Wednesday, December 7, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8807-H8812]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8404, RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1510 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1510
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R.
8404) to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure
respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other
purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider
in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a
motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
or his designee that the House concur in the Senate
amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be
considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their
respective designees. The previous
[[Page H8808]]
question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its
adoption without intervening motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), 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
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, House
Resolution 1510, providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to
H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act. The rule makes in order a
motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary that the
House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 8404 and provides 1 hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Speaker, tonight's rule provides for the consideration of the
Respect for Marriage Act, and I am proud to support this rule to move
that bill to the floor.
The Respect for Marriage Act will repeal the discriminatory Defense
of Marriage Act once and for all and ensure that all across America,
families in same-sex and interracial marriage are afforded the respect
and legal rights and protections they deserve.
Passage of this bill is a critical step to protect the rights and
freedoms of all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or
race, following the Supreme Court's recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson
Women's Health Organization. That decision and recent statements by the
Supreme Court's new rightwing majority have left families across the
country and in my district worried about the future of marriage
equality.
The Respect for Marriage Act will ensure long-term stability and
important statutory protection for all marriages. The Respect for
Marriage Act will safeguard the protections laid out in Obergefell v.
Hodges, as well as prior case law, that protect important fundamental
privacy and liberty rights, all of which were improperly called into
question in the Dobbs decision and related dicta.
This is a matter of respecting the fundamental rights, freedoms, and
liberties of our neighbors, family members, and fellow citizens.
Everyone should have the right to marry the person they love and live
free from discrimination, regardless of where in this great land they
live or travel.
In addition to securing the respect for those marriages, this bill
will also secure respect for families across America and in all of our
communities and families.
The issues addressed by this bill have been thoroughly debated in
this body, in the Senate, and by the American public. The Respect for
Marriage Act will ensure long-term stability and important statutory
protections for all.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
commonsense legislation and to reaffirm the fundamental right to
marriage equality.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I will yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to speak on the bill included within this
rule, Senate amendment to H.R. 3404, the Respect for Marriage Act.
Mr. Speaker, as you well know, this bill previously came before the
House. Unfortunately, at the time, the legislation was a byproduct of a
very truncated process, having received no committee markup and being
parachuted from the Speaker's office straight to the floor.
In response to the rushed House process, the Senate actually
undertook a more comprehensive amendment process on the floor, giving
Senators the opportunity to amend the legislation, something we did not
have the opportunity to do. I am encouraged that the amended version
from the Senate has tried to address some of the religious liberty
concerns that myself and other Members have highlighted.
Even though I can report that this bill is much improved from its
original form, there are still problems with this legislation and its
possible implications for religious institutions and matters of
conscience.
It is regrettable that certain amendments that would safeguard
religious liberty, such as Senator Lee's and Congressman Roy's
amendments prohibiting the government from removing a nonprofit
organization's tax-exempt status based on religious beliefs, those were
all blocked.
Had those additional amendments received a fair hearing and as a
result been adopted, we could have made significant progress toward
addressing the very serious and legitimate concerns about the
consequences of this legislation and its potential curtailment of a
fundamental American right.
Today's bill, while a better product than before, should have been
better, and it is regrettable that we are at this point and this is the
case.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, families in my community are justly skeptical of process
arguments which have been regularly weaponized to roll back the rights,
the freedoms, the liberties that they so richly deserve to exercise. So
I think at this point, there has been plenty of process. There has been
amendment process in both Chambers, and it is time to pass this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Roy), a colleague and certainly a well-spoken member of the
House Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I rise in opposition to the rule. I
made my position clear in the Committee on Rules earlier this week, and
I think it is very much a position held by a large number of my
colleagues.
It is a shame that we are sitting here debating the institution of
marriage but without actual debate. We are here, we are going to debate
this rule, it will be a few minutes, and then boom, we are going to go
vote. We are not going to have any real debate on this tomorrow either.
I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules, an amendment to add
protections for religious liberty, and it was killed on a budget point
of order, a budget point of order that it said would cost around
$500,000 or more. For what? For damages that an individual American
might receive if successful in challenging the Department of Justice if
their rights were being infringed.
Let me be clear. It was going to be killed on a point of order out of
the Committee on Rules because it could be successful in protecting the
rights of Americans, when you have got a piece of legislation that has
a private right of action put into it, a sword to be used against the
American people if they exercise their closely held religious beliefs.
And that is the truth.
It is a bill that was passed off of this floor with no hearing in the
House Committee on the Judiciary, sent to the Senate in July, with no
protection for religious liberty in it, and then provisions were added
in the Senate to provide some very bare minimum, narrow religious
liberty protections, only for the solemnization of marriage.
When an individual tries to offer an amendment to try to protect the
rights of all Americans to be free from persecution--if, for example,
you are a school, a religious school, that might not want to hire
somebody in a same-sex marriage because it is against your closely held
religious beliefs, you might have to litigate that now. The response by
the other side is: Oh, my gosh, the Constitution exists; oh, my gosh,
RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, exists.
So the shield that people had before is now the thing that you have
to go litigate in court and hire lawyers to defend yourself for
exercising your closely held religious beliefs against the
[[Page H8809]]
sword that this legislation provides. That is the truth of what we are
dealing with here.
We offered an amendment in good faith, just like Senator Mike Lee
did, a bipartisan amendment, by the way. We are getting no debate, no
ability to offer that amendment on the floor, no ability to have a
debate on that amendment, no ability to actually have a conversation
about the free exercise of religion and protecting people's closely
held religious beliefs.
That is why people are sick of this institution. We do not debate. We
do not amend. We simply jam stuff through the Committee on Rules and
then we walk away and go give speeches on the steps. That is no way to
do business. I hope we change that in the new Congress. But this is not
the way to do business in the House of Representatives.
{time} 1915
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we believe that the
gentleman's amendment is both duplicative and unnecessary.
The Senate spent months crafting a bipartisan compromise to amend
H.R. 8404 to address the religious liberty concerns that were raised by
Republicans in the House and Senate. Sections 6 and 7 of this
legislation ensure no impact on religious liberty.
Adopting this new and unnecessary amendment would unsettle the
Senate's carefully crafted compromise and delay the enactment of this
necessary, historic, and bipartisan legislation.
If the House passes this legislation, it will be sent straight to the
President's desk to become law. This Congress is coming to a close, and
we don't have the time to make changes to this legislation.
This bill has gone through both the House and Senate and through the
American public, and I believe it needs to be signed into law as soon
as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of this
legislation from the Interfaith Alliance, from U.S. Jewish
organizations, and from eight leaders of faith-based organizations
representing tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of religious
institutions.
November 28, 2022.
Hon. Tammy Baldwin,
Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Susan Collins,
Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Baldwin and Collins: The Respect for Marriage
Act is a simple way to provide legal stability for all
married couples and their families. Within our communities,
we approach matters of marriage, family, and identity
differently. This bill recognizes this diversity of belief
while ensuring that same-sex and interracial couples are
treated with equal respect by federal and state governments.
As faith-based organizations, we recognize that the First
Amendment right to religious freedom is a cornerstone of our
democracy. The bipartisan substitute amendment provides
important clarification around the interaction between the
Respect for Marriage Act and the robust religious freedom
protections guaranteed under federal law. Crafted in the
spirit of collaboration, the amendment protects the right to
believe as we choose while leaving intact the core mission of
the legislation to respect marriages.
The freedom to marry who one loves is a matter of human
dignity and supported by a majority of almost every major
religious tradition in the United States. We urge the Senate
to adopt the bipartisan amendment in full, without further
amendment needed to protect religious freedom.
Respectfully,
Interfaith Alliance, ADL (The Anti-Defamation League), Bend
the Arc: Jewish Action, Center for Faith, Justice, and
Reconciliation, The Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran
Church in America, Faithful America, Hindu American
Foundation, Hindus for Human Rights, Jewish Women
International, Keshet.
Muslims for Progressive Values, National Council of Jewish
Women, NETWORK Catholic Social Justice Lobby, Presbyterian
Church (USA) Office of Public Witness, Reconstructionist
Rabbinical Association, The Sikh Coalition, Sojourners, Union
for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association,
United Church of Christ.
____
Washington, DC, September 6, 2022.
U.S. Jewish Organizations' Letter to Senate Supporting Respect for
Marriage Act
On behalf of the Union for Reform Judaism, Keshet, and 108
additional Jewish organizations, the following letter was
shared in support of the Respect for Marriage Act (S. 4556):
Dear Senator: On behalf of the 100 undersigned national,
state, and local Jewish organizations, we write to express
our support for the Respect for Marriage Act (S. 4556).
Driven by our Jewish values, we are committed to supporting
laws that protect the civil rights and individual liberties
of all people. The Respect for Marriage Act would codify
three landmark Supreme Court cases, Obergefell v. Hodges;
Windsor v. United States; and Loving v. Virginia, and
therefore the basic rights of same-sex and interracial
marriage. We urge Congress to swiftly pass this important
bill.
Jewish tradition teaches that all people are created
b'tzelem Elohim, in the Divine image, and are worthy of
dignity and respect. As organizations grounded in Jewish
values and beliefs, we have an ethical and moral
responsibility to fight for a society that ensures the
humanity of all people. Every person is entitled to marry who
they love--regardless of sexual orientation or race.
Indeed, support for same-sex marriage protections extends
across the faith community, and throughout the country. A
majority of all faith groups--including 77 percent of Jews,
57 percent of mainline Protestants, and 57 percent of
Catholics support same sex marriage. This view is shared by
seven in ten Americans--including 83 percent of Democrats, 73
percent of independents, and 55 percent of Republicans.
Additionally, the Respect for Marriage Act would ensure
that all federal benefits are available to married couples
regardless of the state in which they live. Congress has a
responsibility to pursue economic equity for all, regardless
of geographical location, and include historically
marginalized groups in this pursuit.
The right to marry who one loves is a matter of human
dignity. Our faith teaches us the kol yisrael arevim ezh
bazeh, we are all responsible for each other, and therefore
must take action to create a community for which we all can
take pride.
As Jewish organizations, we believe firmly that all people
deserve the right to marry who they love, regardless of
sexual orientation or race. We urge Congress to pass the
Respect for Marriage Act.
Sincerely,
Union for Reform Judaism, Keshet, ADL (Anti-Defamation
League), ADL Austin Region, ADL Florida, ADL New England, ADL
New York/New Jersey, ADL San Diego, ADL Southeast, ADL
Southwest, ADL Texoma, ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal,
Ameinu, American Conference of Cantors, American Jewish World
Service, Avodah, Aytzim, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Beth
Chayim Chadashim, B'nai B'rith Connect, California Religious
Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-CA), Carolina Jews for
Justice, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Charles and
Lynn Schusterman Family Philantrohpies, Coastal Roots Farm,
Columbia Jewish Congregation, Congregation Agudas Achim,
Austin Texas, Congregation Har HaShem, Boulder, CO;
Congregation Rodeph Sholom, Congregation Sha'ar Zahav,
Florida Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-
FL), Greater Miami Jewish Federation, Hadassah, The
Women's Zionist Organization of America, Havurat Shalom,
Andover MA, IKAR, Illinois Religious Action Center of
Reform Judaism (RAC-IL), J Street, Jewish Alliance for Law
and Social Action, Jewish Community Action, Jewish
Community Center of Asheville, Jewish Community Federation
and Endowment Fund, Jewish Community Relations Council
(JCRC) of the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia,
Jewish Community Relations Council of Broward County,
Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston,
Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco, the
Peninsula, Marin, Sonoma, Alameda, and Contra Costa
Counties, Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), Jewish
Council on Urban Affairs.
Jewish Emergent Network, Jewish Family Service Houston,
Jewish Family Service of Greater New Orleans, Jewish Family
Service of Los Angeles, Jewish Family Service of San Diego,
Jewish Federation of Greater Ann Arbor, Jewish Federation of
Greater Portland, Jewish Labor Committee, Jewish Teen
Education and Engagement Network, LLC (JTEEN), Jewish Women
International, Jewish Youth Climate Movement, Jews for a
Secular Democracy, Jews United for Justice (JUFJ), Jewtina y
Co., JQY (Jewish Queer Youth), JYCA (Jewish Youth for
Community Action), Kane Street Synagogue, Lab/Shul, Makom
Shelanu.
Malkhut: progressive Jewish spirituality in Queens,
Massachusetts Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-
MA), MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, Men of Reform
Judaism, Milwaukee Jewish Federation, Mishkan Chicago, Moving
Traditions, National Council of Jewish Women, National
Council of Jewish Women New York, Network of Jewish Human
Service Agencies, New Israel Fund, New Jersey Religious
Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-NJ), New York Religious
Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-NY), Ohio Religious
Acton Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-OH), Peninsula Jewish
Community Center, Pennsylvania Religious Action Center of
Reform Judaism (RAC-PA), Rabbinical Assembly, Reconstructing
Judaism, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association.
Romemu, SAI-Judaism that Stands for All, Saul Mirowitz
Jewish Community School, Shalom Austin, Sixth Circle
Consulting, Society for Humanistic Judaism, St. Paul Jewish
Federation, T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for
[[Page H8810]]
Human Rights, TBE, Temple Beth Ahm Yisrael, Temple Beth El
(Tacoma), Temple Beth El of Boca Raton, Temple Emanu-El of
Westfield, Temple Kol Emeth, Temple Ohabei Shalom, Temple
Shir Tikva, Texas Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
(RAC-TX), The Shalom Center, The Temple--Atlanta GA, The
Workers Circle, Tivnu: Building Justice, Tribe 12, Tzedek
Georgia, USY, Women of Reform Judaism.
____
November 15, 2022.
Re The Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404)
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Senators: We are leaders of faith-based organizations
representing tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of
religious institutions. All our organizations hold to an
understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman.
Many of us privately expressed concerns about the House-
passed version of the Respect for Marriage Act.
We are gratified by the substitute religious freedom
language offered by Senators Collins, Baldwin, Sinema,
Portman, Tillis, and Romney. It adequately protects the core
religious freedom concerns raised by the bill, including tax
exempt status, educational funding, government grants and
contracts, and eligibility for licenses, certification, and
accreditation. If passed, it would continue to build on the
congressional wisdom represented by the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).
Attached are many statements from individual organizations.
Sincerely,
Elder Jack N. Gerard,
The Quorum of the Seventy, The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints.
Melissa Reid,
Director of Government Affairs, Seventh-day Adventist
Church-North American Division.
Nathan J. Diament,
Executive Director for Public Policy, Union of Orthodox
Jewish Congregations of America.
Shirley Hoogstra,
President, Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.
Rev. Justin E. Giboney,
President, AND Campaign.
Stanley Carlson-Thies,
Founder and Senior Director, Institutional Religious
Freedom Alliance.
Stephanie Summers,
CEO, Center for Public Justice.
Tim Schultz,
President, 1st Amendment Partnership.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would inquire as to whether
or not the gentlewoman has additional speakers.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the distinguished chairwoman of the
Committee on Oversight and Reform.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for the Respect for
Marriage Act.
In all my decades of public service, I have never wavered in my
support for the LGBTQ+ community. In 1990, I introduced the first
legislation in New York State history to grant legal recognition to
same-sex couples. When the Defense of Marriage Act was introduced in
1996, I was one of 67 House Members to vote against it. I knew then
what I know now: DOMA was a bigoted, discriminatory solution to a
problem that never existed.
It never made sense that I could get into a cab and meet someone that
I have never met before, a cab driver, and marry a complete stranger.
You could marry the driver that day. Yet a bold, brave New Yorker, and
a friend of mine, named Edie Windsor could not have her marriage
recognized. She took that fight to the Supreme Court and won.
Mr. Speaker, the Respect for Marriage Act will ensure LGBTQ equality,
but much more work needs to be done. I thank Chairman Nadler for this
bill.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Sessions), a former chairman of the Rules Committee.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is important what we are doing here
because our friends, the Democrats, were arguing that there is no
additional rights of action, that this isn't going to change anything.
In fact, this same discussion that we are having, if that is true, and
we are going to say that we take them at their word, that would mean no
rights of action would take place as a result of this law.
Any judge would be able to look at the reason why we are passing this
and the intent that would be on the floor of the House of
Representatives, and that is what is being stated here tonight: No
right of action; that is not what this is about.
I would hope that we would understand, just as when I was the
chairman of the Rules Committee, that what we did and the way we talked
on this floor is what the intent would be for a judge, for a lawsuit.
If something were to happen, they would open up the Record, just as we
are doing here tonight, Mr. Speaker, and a judge, magistrate, Federal
judge, State district judge, anyone ruling on this constitutional right
would be able to see that this is not about a right of action.
So, let's be clear. That was stated point blank in this discussion on
the floor of the House of Representatives. It was reiterated up at the
Rules Committee at the time that the rule came to the floor. That is
what is stated. I will accept that as their word.
I thank the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas, for his time and
service to the Rules Committee. I spent 20 years on the darn committee,
6 years as chairman, and I understood when we handled matters that we
spoke clearly and that we spoke directly about the intent of the law. I
have heard enough to understand that, and I appreciate Mr. Burgess for
yielding to me.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I would again inquire whether my colleague
has any further testimony.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, if the
gentlewoman is prepared to close.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
In closing, I would note that today's rule is, in fact, the product
of a very rushed legislative process. The bill should have been subject
to regular order so that it could be improved to address religious
liberty concerns noted by my fellow Members.
The very fact that we have had this discussion here on the floor to
me indicates that there is some ambiguity. I thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Roy) and Chairman Sessions for coming and raising the
argument.
Section 6 of this bill provides protection of religious liberty, but
only if you are religious enough. If you are a church, you are
protected. If you are an individual or a school, you may not be, and
you may be subject to that private right of action.
What we are voting on today is emblematic of how this one-party
Democratic rule has been enforced in Washington, D.C., over the past 2
years. I am discouraged to see the majority is still focused on passing
partisan messaging bills which will not address the problems they
purportedly claim to want to solve.
This week, we are considering partisan bills instead of focusing our
efforts on things like funding the Federal Government, maybe even the
authorization for the Nation's defense, one of the requirements under
the Constitution that we fulfill.
Unfortunately, tonight, this is a continuation of a discouraging and
regrettable trend that I hope will be revisited by a new Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, tonight's vote should be an easy one. The Respect for
Marriage Act passed the Senate with broad bipartisan support, and the
bill is supported by over 70 percent of Americans. It provides critical
safeguards for a right that many Americans have already exercised and
rely upon for the protection and prosperity of their families.
The Respect for Marriage Act is historic legislation to protect the
marriages of same-sex and interracial couples. I don't think history
will look kindly on those who, when given the
[[Page H8811]]
ability to protect the rights and freedoms of their constituents, chose
to say no.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the LGBTQ community, my cousins, my dearest
friends and neighbors, religious communities across the country, and,
of course, the city of brotherly love and sisterly affection, which I
am so proud to represent, I stand in strong support of the Respect for
Marriage Act, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
rule and the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217,
nays 204, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 512]
YEAS--217
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Peltola
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (NY)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--204
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Conway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Flores
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sempolinski
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--10
Bergman
Buck
Cheney
Donalds
Kinzinger
McHenry
Murphy (NC)
Rice (SC)
Rutherford
Ryan (OH)
{time} 2001
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, please accept this personal explanation as
I was unexpectedly detained during vote proceedings. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 512.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Axne (Pappas)
Baird (Bucshon)
Bass (Cicilline)
Beatty (Neguse)
Brooks (Fleischmann)
Brown (MD) (Beyer)
DeFazio (Pallone)
Doyle, Michael F. (Pallone)
Duncan (Norman)
Dunn (Salazar)
Evans (Beyer)
Gosar (Weber (TX))
Grijalva (Neguse)
Hayes (Neguse)
Herrera Beutler (Stewart)
Hice (GA) (Boebert)
Huffman (Levin (CA))
Jacobs (NY) (Sempolinski)
Johnson (TX) (Pallone)
Kahele (Correa)
Kildee (Pappas)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lawrence (Garcia (TX))
Lawson (FL) (Wasserman Schultz)
Lieu (Beyer)
Malliotakis (Gimenez)
Maloney, Sean P. (Pappas)
Mfume (Beyer)
Napolitano (Correa)
Neal (Beyer)
Newman (Correa)
O'Halleran (Pappas)
Palazzo (Fleischmann)
Pascrell (Pallone)
Payne (Pallone)
Pressley (Neguse)
Roybal-Allard (Correa)
Ruppersberger (Sarbanes)
Rush (Beyer)
Simpson (Fulcher)
Sires (Pallone)
Swalwell (Correa)
Titus (Pallone)
Torres (NY) (Pappas)
Wagner (Fleischmann)
Welch (Pallone)
Wenstrup (LaHood)
Yarmuth (Beyer)
ENSURING LIBERTY FOR UKRAINE
(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, today is day number 286 of Russia's
unprovoked, illegal terrorist war on Ukraine.
As Congress works to complete our 2023 appropriations bills, it is
critical that the appropriation accounts for defense and energy
security be fully funded. Let us be mindful that liberty has real
enemies.
Our Nation, in alliance with the free nations of the world, cannot
miss a beat in ensuring NATO remains the strongest defender of global
liberty.
Vladimir Putin's criminal war on its innocent neighbor began in 2014.
By crossing Ukraine's sovereign border, Putin violated every tenet of
international law that has existed since World War II.
Then in February of this year, Russia unleashed its full terror. The
free world must draw a bold line in the sand against Russia's illegal
behavior.
Any nation that does not respect the sovereignty, territorial
integrity, and independence of adjoining nations must be brought to
full reckoning.
The free world cannot stand by idly. Putin's war machine must be
defeated.
The people of Ukraine are fighting valiantly for their own freedom.
May the bills being drafted as I speak ensure our Nation meets its
obligation as liberty's primary defender.
[[Page H8812]]
____________________