[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 158 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H4791-H4799]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5692, UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE
AND OVERSIGHT SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024; PROVIDING FOR
FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4365, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024; AND PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 4367, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 730 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 730
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5692) making
supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2024, and for other purposes. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) 30 minutes 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.
Sec. 2. During further consideration of the bill (H.R.
4365) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and for other
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 723, the further
amendment specified in section 3 shall be considered as
adopted.
Sec. 3. The amendments referred to in section 2 is as
follows:
(1) ``On Page 10, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $300,000,000)''; and
(2) ``Strike section 8104.''.
Sec. 4. During further consideration of the bill (H.R.
4367) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and
for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 723, the
further amendment specified in section 5 shall be considered
as adopted.
Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as
follows:
``Strike section 406 and strike section 407 and insert
SEC.___. Notwithstanding the numerical limitation set forth
in section 214(g)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(g)(1)(B)), the Secretary of Homeland
Security, after consultation with the Secretary of Labor, and
upon determining that the needs of American businesses cannot
be satisfied during fiscal year 2024 with United States
workers who are willing, qualified, and able to perform
temporary nonagricultural labor, may increase the total
number of aliens who may receive a visa under section
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b)) in such fiscal year above such
limitation by not more than the highest number of H-2B
nonimmigrants who participated in the H-2B returning worker
program in any fiscal year in which returning workers were
exempt from such numerical limitation.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), my very good friend, the ranking member of the full
committee, 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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on
House Resolution 730.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and
reported out a rule, House Resolution 730, providing for the
consideration of H.R. 5692, the Ukraine Security Assistance and
Oversight Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024, under a closed rule.
It provides 30 minutes of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees, and it provides for one
motion to recommit.
I rise today, Mr. Speaker, in order to support that rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, although I know my friends in the minority will express
some consternation about today's rule, it sets up a discussion that I
think is important to have.
The rule takes $300 million in funds intended to support Ukraine out
of the current Defense appropriations process. It then makes in order a
separate vote on those funds through H.R. 5692.
The bill also creates a special inspector general for Ukraine
assistance, ensuring that American dollars going to Ukraine receive
appropriate oversight and supervision.
Now, as my friends across the aisle are well aware, there is no
mystery about how I will vote on this question. Ukraine has been and
remains the victim of Vladimir Putin's unprovoked, unjust, and illegal
invasion of his neighbor to the West. I firmly support continuing to
provide funding to Ukraine so that they can continue to resist that
invasion. It is not only in America's national interests to do so, but
it is also the right thing to do.
For other Members of the House and for their constituents, a vote on
funding for Ukraine is a matter of conscience. Shifting these funds out
of the Defense appropriations process and into a separate bill allows
those Members for whom there is a question of conscience to vote to
support our troops through an otherwise robust Defense appropriations
bill while also allowing all Members to vote separately on providing
funding to Ukraine.
Mr. Speaker, it is never a bad thing to have all Members of the House
take a vote on a question. It is especially helpful in this instance to
give all Members the chance to be heard.
Some of my Republican colleagues are supportive of the overall
Defense appropriations bill but want to vote separately on Ukraine.
Conversely, the vast majority of my friends across the aisle support
funding for Ukraine but are opposed to the Defense appropriations bill.
Voting on this issue separately through H.R. 5692 gives everyone a
chance to be recorded on this important topic.
This resolution does something else that I think is very important.
It sets up a debate about American policy toward Ukraine. This is a
very valuable discussion to have, Mr. Speaker, and one that the
American people would assuredly benefit from.
A debate on American policy toward Ukraine is important. It would
help answer certain key questions that Americans are asking, such as:
What is America's overall strategy? How are funds being used in
Ukraine? What oversight policies are in place?
[[Page H4792]]
President Biden has never given a formal address to the American
people outlining America's overall strategy with respect to Ukraine,
but that does not mean the House cannot have such a discussion. In
fact, the opposite is true. The Biden administration's failure to
adequately explain to the American people what our overall strategy is
means that it is imperative for the House to discuss the topic on the
House floor.
Today's rule will give the House and, more importantly, the American
people just that opportunity. We can have an open and honest discussion
about American policy toward Ukraine and about American dollars
supporting Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression. When the
debate is over, all Members of the House will have the opportunity to
vote on this important question.
I am confident that, at the end of the day, the House will pass this
measure to appropriate these funds to support Ukraine. The only
difference will be that we had a full, open, and honest debate about it
on the House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support both the rule and the
underlying measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, my
good friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in 57 hours, this government will shut down. Federal
workers will be sent home. Members of the Armed Forces will defend our
country without pay. Programs that feed hungry moms and newborns will
stop. Travelers will face airport delays. Critical research on diseases
like cancer and Alzheimer's will grind to a halt.
You would think that last night, when the Rules Committee held an
emergency meeting, that it would be on stopping the shutdown. That is
the actual emergency, Mr. Speaker, that is facing our country. You
would be wrong. Instead of a bipartisan CR that can pass, we are back
at the eleventh hour to amend a rule, the first rule this majority
passed in weeks, because, once again, Speaker McCarthy is letting
extreme MAGA Republicans blackmail him.
What we are doing here is absurd. This assistance for Ukraine has
been in the Defense bill for years, well before the latest invasion by
Russia. This isn't even the Ukraine funding that President Zelenskyy
asked for or the funding the administration requested. This shouldn't
be controversial.
First, it was in the bill, then it wasn't, then it was. Then,
yesterday, we had a standalone vote on Ukraine funding, and the House
voted overwhelmingly, 339-93, a majority of the majority, an
overwhelming vote against stripping the Ukraine assistance in this
bill.
Instead of accepting that loss, extreme MAGA Republicans are
blackmailing Kevin McCarthy. Here we are, rigging the rules to undo
that vote.
They want to overturn the will of this House. They refuse to accept
the fact that they lost. What is it with Republicans refusing to accept
when they lose? Why can't you accept a loss? Why can't you respect the
vote?
I guess there is a pattern here. We saw it when they didn't want to
accept the Presidential election. Here on the House floor, we see when
extreme MAGA, rightwing Republicans don't get their way, when they lose
overwhelmingly, they can't accept a loss. They go to the Rules
Committee and say: Rig the process.
Did Trump call them and tell them to do this? I mean, this is so
unbelievably wrong.
The gentleman from Oklahoma has said some Members have very strong
moral objections to assisting Ukraine. Okay. I have strong moral
objections to the billions and billions of dollars of blank checks that
were given to the Pentagon.
{time} 1500
I have strong moral objections to the fact that we refuse to ban the
transfer of cluster munitions to other countries around the world, but
guess what? It is our job as Members of Congress to weigh the pros and
cons and vote yes or no. If people do not want to make those tough
decisions, don't run for Congress.
I appreciate that the gentleman from Oklahoma voted for and supports
giving Ukraine the tools they need to defend themselves, but what the
gentleman is doing here is making it exponentially more likely that
this Ukraine funding will not become law.
Because if this doesn't make a difference, if these bills are moving
together and this is all just about giving people yet another chance to
vote on something they already voted on, what is the point?
The rule provides 30 minutes of debate on this sidecar Ukraine
funding bill, 30 minutes, 15 minutes on each side. What a debate that
is going to be.
I will tell you what the point of all of this is. Let me read you the
words of our colleague Marjorie Taylor Greene when she left the
Republican Conference meeting this morning. She told the reporter: ``We
are not funding Ukraine. That is what I heard in there.''
Let me inform the gentlewoman: We all had a chance to vote our
conscience, up or down. Those who voted to strike Ukraine aid can go
home and tell their constituents that they voted to strike Ukraine aid.
It is not that complicated.
What concerns many of us is the signal these extreme MAGA Republicans
are sending to Putin. Putin is an authoritarian thug. What he is doing
in Ukraine is sick. His troops are shelling nuclear power plants,
killing civilians, bombing hospitals, abducting women, massacring
people. My MAGA colleagues want to send him a message, and that message
is: Just hold on a little longer. Wait a little longer and you can do
whatever you want.
This House had a vote, and we are here to overturn it, all because
Speaker McCarthy is letting extreme MAGA Republicans blackmail him
because he cares more about keeping his job than doing his job.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by reminding my friend that, again, we
agree on this issue. We both feel strongly in support of Ukraine. I
know my friend will vote accordingly. So will I.
The reality is, this measure actually makes it more likely that
Ukraine will get support, not less likely. As a part of the Defense
bill, that bill may or may not pass. My friends are united in their
opposition against that bill for a variety of reasons. That is
certainly their right, but they actually do support this particular
measure almost unanimously. Why not take it out of a bill that may or
may not pass the floor and have a separate vote?
My friends will actually be able to vote to move forward something
they agree with and, quite frankly, something the majority of my
Conference agrees with. I don't see how this imperils Ukrainian
funding. It makes it almost certain.
Moreover, I do believe discussion on this floor has considerable
merit on this issue. The reality is that we haven't had that
discussion, and it is time we did. I wished the President, who I happen
to support in this instance--I don't support every nuance of his
policy. I think he was too slow to commit here, too slow to get aid
there. He has been unclear about what the final objectives of this
exercise are, an exercise I remind everyone is extraordinarily
expensive. It is over $100 billion invested and a request for more. I
wish the President would do that. The House is going to endeavor to do
that, at least to some degree, through this discussion.
Again, I think it is important to note that if you support Ukraine,
you should support this measure because my friends, who I know
sincerely do support that effort, are going to almost and probably
unanimously oppose the Defense bill in which it is contained.
Why in the world would they be upset because we take it out, put it
on its own, make it more likely to pass, and, frankly, do what we are
supposed to do around here, which is actually let every American see
how his or her Member of Congress votes on this issue and how they
choose to defend it. I just simply think it is the appropriate way to
go.
Now, I will be candid with my friend, as I always try to be. It also
helps us pass the Defense bill. We have some people, because they feel
very strongly about this particular issue, who might
[[Page H4793]]
not vote for the Defense bill that otherwise will. I am not going to
apologize because we strengthen our ability to actually move an
important piece of legislation through. The one thing we do, and it is
really not disputable, is we increase the chances that Ukraine will get
at least this $300 million of additional training aid that I think they
ought to get and that my friends agree with.
Having one more vote on the House floor, particularly at a time when
we are having so many, does not seem to me to be a high price to pay.
Mr. Speaker, let me quickly address one other point that my friend
made. He talked about an imminent shutdown. We are coming close, and my
friend is absolutely correct in that. I do remind him that the Rules
Committee passed a measure roughly a week ago, I believe, that actually
is an amendment that would continue funding the government while we
work out our motions. That amendment can come out of the Rules
Committee. It can be placed on the floor at whatever time the Speaker
and the leadership of the majority choose to do that. There are
vehicles in place to act.
I also remind my friend that the United States Senate is doing the
same thing. I would prefer that we not get as close to the deadline as
we are, but we are here. It is not as if nothing is being done and time
in other areas is being wasted.
I suspect we will have a vote relatively soon on continuing to
support the government. It may or may not pass. I suspect the United
States Senate will have a similar vote. I suspect that one probably
will pass and move to this Chamber.
The idea that nothing is being done while trivialities are being
debated, I dismiss that out of hand. I don't think that is the truth.
Those issues are coming to a head right now, but again, I end once
more with the obvious point: If you care about Ukraine, you ought to be
voting for this measure. I will. I know my friends almost unanimously
will, and that will ensure that that important funding moves forward.
We have a fuller debate on the House floor about American objectives,
goals, the price tag associated with that.
I think these are all good things, all things where the House is
actually doing the right thing and, frankly, where I think the majority
is giving the minority an opportunity to move forward, something I know
they feel passionate about. I share that passion, and many on our side
do, too.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule, which makes this possible,
and the underlying resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my good
friend from Oklahoma, and he knows I have great affection for him, but
I am dizzy from all the spin, quite frankly.
First, about the CR, what we know is that what may or may not pass in
the House, based on the fact that the Freedom Caucus seems to be
calling the shots, will never pass the Senate. We know whatever will
come out of the Rules Committee in the next 24 hours or 48 hours or
whatever, if anything, if ever, will not be able to get the votes not
just amongst Democrats but amongst Republicans in the Senate.
Secondly, we do know that the Senate is working in a bipartisan way.
They already have clotured and moved forward with the process to bring
up a CR, with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote, but we know what they
pass would pass this House if put on the floor. The reason why this
government will, in all likelihood, shut down is because the Speaker of
the House is so beholden to a small group of the most extreme Members
that he won't put that on the floor. He will rig it so that we do not
have a chance to be able to vote on it. That is how this government
will shut down.
My good friend talks about how this is really no big deal. It is just
another vote, and everybody should be happy, but let me ask, if this
were good for Ukraine and Ukraine's ability to defend itself against
Russia's illegal war, then why would members of the pro-Putin caucus
even agree to this? If everyone genuinely thought there was no
difference between keeping the funding in the Defense bill and moving
it separately, why insist on all of this?
The answer is really simple: Republicans who seem to be enamored with
Putin want this funding sent separately to the Senate because they know
that is their best shot to prevent this money from going to Ukraine at
all.
In fact, when Marjorie Taylor Greene left the Republican Conference
meeting this morning--I quoted her already, but I will quote it again.
She said: ``We are not funding Ukraine. That is what I heard in
there.''
Plus, we all know that there are Senators like Rand Paul and Tommy
Tuberville who will block a separate Ukraine funding bill from moving
forward. They are actively preventing the Senate from completing its
work as we speak. This is not a flaw in the sidecar plan. It is a main
feature and a goal.
Let's be clear. This funding that we are talking about here is
longstanding security assistance. It has been in the Defense bill for
years, even before Putin invaded Ukraine. This is not the supplemental
funding that President Zelenskyy requested when he met with Speaker
McCarthy last week. This is not the supplemental funding the
administration requested in their emergency funding request. It is not
the supplemental funding that the Senate is trying to put in their
bipartisan CR.
Spare me the argument that somehow this is a good thing and gives
everybody a chance for their voice to be heard on this topic. If
everybody wanted their voice to be heard on this topic, you would have
speaker after speaker right now speaking on this bill and speaking
about their concerns about our Ukraine policy. There is no one over
there.
Let's all be real about what is happening. The House already had its
voice heard, and it overwhelmingly voted to support funding in the
Defense bill, a three-fourths majority. You can't get that many people
to agree on lunch in this place, and it is a majority of your majority.
The pro-Putin extremists didn't like the outcome, so they talked the
Speaker into rigging the vote. That is what this is all about.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to offer the House the opportunity to
demonstrate for a third time that we stand by Ukraine in their time of
need, and I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will
offer an amendment that would strike the provision of the rule
eliminating security assistance funding for Ukraine.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) to discuss this proposal.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, Republicans spent 3 weeks trying to bring
the Defense appropriations act to the floor. Three times it went to the
Rules Committee. The first two times, the rule failed on the floor, and
it failed, in part, because a small minority of Republicans do not
support any Ukrainian assistance, including support for Ukraine that
has been in the base Defense bill for 9 years.
The Republican Conference knew for weeks that this was a problem for
them, and that is why they have created this pseudo minibus that we
have been working on the past few days. It is loaded with extreme
social policy riders to appease the far right so that their party can
advance a Defense bill.
Earlier this week, Republicans could have used the Rules Committee to
strip out the Ukraine funding from the Defense bill. They chose not to
do so then. Instead, the Rules Committee made two Republican amendments
in order to strike any Ukrainian funding. Then that amendment came to
the floor, and they asked the House to do its will.
The Biggs amendment was rejected by this House by a vote of 104-330.
The Gaetz amendment was also rejected 93-339. In a closely divided
Congress, this is about as clearly a bipartisan vote as you can get. In
both cases, the Republicans and the Democrats stood together with
Ukraine, but the Republicans found out that they still had a problem
with the extreme right in their party.
Even after the votes, the vocal Republican minority threatened the
[[Page H4794]]
Speaker again to take down the Defense bill, all because the votes
didn't go their way, so here we are today.
The Speaker has sent the Defense bill back to the Rules Committee to
override the will of this House in its most basic democratic process of
amending bills.
{time} 1515
It is ironic that the Speaker is so focused on passing the defense
bill in such an undemocratic way. He has wasted weeks letting the far
right abuse the Republican majority, while at the same time failing to
address the impending government shutdown.
Today, these extreme Members are abusing the entire House of
Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, Members, the lessons from the last 3 weeks could not be
more clear. When you don't stand up to bullies, they continue to bully
you. That is what is happening here. The bullies in the Republican
Conference have won once again at the expense of this institution. That
is why I would ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question.
Let's stand up to the bullies in this Chamber. Let's strip this
outrageous provision from the rule and return this House to regular
order where every vote matters, and when the vote of the majority of
the House speaks, it is respected.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address two points, one that my friend from
Massachusetts made about the potential of a government shutdown.
As my friend knows, because we have spent a lot of time together,
particularly recently, I am very much opposed to a government shutdown.
I am pleased we have a vehicle out of the Rules Committee to address
that. It is not up to me to decide when it comes to the floor, but
there is one prepared, and hopefully, we will have an opportunity to
vote on this.
I remind my friends that during the debt ceiling crisis, they said,
oh, my gosh, we will never get out of this without defaulting on the
debt. My gosh, it is the end of the world.
What did the House do?
It actually passed its bill and had a negotiating position and sat
down with the Senate and the administration and negotiated a
settlement. Some like it. Some don't like it. It is like anything
around here in divided government, it is a compromise. The reality is
that we moved and acted before the deadline. We have that ability, and
I suspect we will do that before the deadline.
I also remind my friends--and again, I think they would agree with
this--the United States Senate is moving and will present a vehicle. We
may be in a negotiating position. They, by the way, never passed
anything on the debt ceiling on their own. They waited to have a
negotiating position from the House and then finally woke up and sat
down with us. They never moved their own vehicle.
This is normal legislative process. That is an important question,
but I agree with my friends about the virtue of a shutdown. I think
that is actually the sentiment of the overwhelming majority of the
House on both sides of the aisle.
We have got something working on that. The Senate has something, and
we will see how that plays out over the next few days.
In terms of this measure, I am mystified by my friend's position.
They are overwhelmingly in favor of support for Ukraine. I share that
position, as does the majority of my side of the aisle.
Right now, $300 million of that support is embedded in a defense bill
that they themselves will oppose unanimously, and we may or may not get
everybody on our side. The reality is, it is a very narrow majority.
People can have a different opinion, and we might or might not be able
to pass it, but they support that particular measure almost uniformly.
Now when we take it out and say, here is something you support and
the majority of us support, why don't we not risk this in a bill that
could go either way?
Why don't we just advance this portion of it? That somehow is a
problem?
I actually see it as something that ensures this particular issue
will almost certainly move through the House. Moreover, I think it
ensures a more robust discussion and an education on this important
measure.
The reality is, it is hard for the average American to follow this.
We have not had a Presidential address laying out the goals, the
reasons, and the strategy for this. I think more discussion about
Ukraine on the House floor would be helpful, not unhelpful,
particularly when I think the majority in the Chamber would very
strongly come out in support.
I don't see this in any way as somehow damaging our ability. Rather,
it sort of clarifies our opinion on this issue in a very narrowly
divided House. I think that is a good thing. I am not going to
apologize, quite frankly, if this helps us get another couple of votes
on a defense bill that I think is a good defense bill and a move toward
a conference with the Senate on the appropriations front--that is all
to the good. I don't have any problem with that.
If I can remove somebody's moral objection or concern and give them
an opportunity to express their opinion, whether I agree with it or
not, and recruit additional support, I think that is just smart
politics and good procedure.
More importantly, I want to reemphasize that if you care about
Ukraine, you should like this. You should say: Gosh, let's at least
make sure that training money is going to get there. I won't have to
vote against a bill that contains a measure I support. That measure has
got to be taken out. I can support that measure and still oppose the
bill if I want to. At least this thing that I care about deeply is
actually going to be passed.
I think that is a prudent way to proceed. I think it is the right
thing to do for Ukraine. I look forward at that time and that vote to
actually voting with my friends on that measure.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have nothing but great affection for the gentleman
from Oklahoma, but we have to deal with the reality that we are now
living in.
This quote from Minority Leader McConnell was just tweeted out today
with a message to the House Republicans on how a shutdown would impact
the border. Mr. McConnell says: ``Shutting down the government is a
choice, and it is a choice that would make the crisis at the southern
border even worse.''
He says it is a choice because he sees what is happening here. He
sees that the Republicans in this Chamber have made a choice to shut
the government down. We didn't hear anything today about the border,
but yesterday or the day before we did hear a lot about the border.
Senator McConnell says that it would make the crisis at our southern
border even worse.
He is concerned. He is the Republican leader in the Senate. He is
concerned by the action of the Republicans in this House. He sees that
a small group of Republicans are calling the shots. They don't even
represent the majority of the majority here. It is really quite
extraordinary that we are at this moment.
Rather than moving in a direction where we can get a bipartisan CR
passed in both the House and the Senate and one that will be signed by
the President, my Republican friends in the House are going in the
wrong direction. We are running out of time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule. It concerns me that my
friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee--and I believe that I say
this correctly--described this as part of the normal democratic
process. If that is true, then that is the new normal and it is more
evidence of dysfunction and the inability to govern than it is anything
else.
A few years ago, Fiona Hill said that polarization in this country is
now a national security threat because it shows the rest of the world
that we can't function, we can't govern. No one outside this body is
going to see this rule and this tactic as anything other than at least
an attempt to defund the efforts to help Ukraine.
I get it. The Speaker has the sword of Damocles over his head because
of a few Members in the far right that have disproportionate control.
We are not
[[Page H4795]]
talking about the tail wagging the dog, it is the tip of the dog's
tail. The rest of the world is watching this, understanding the
underlying reasons why this so matters.
Ukraine's fight is the reason we fought the Second World War. It is
the reason we formed NATO, and it is the reason we formed the United
Nations. We simply cannot let a sovereign democratic country get wiped
off the face of the Earth. We grew up hearing and believing ``Never
again.'' Yet, as I stood in Bucha in Ukraine and saw the mass grave and
heard the horrors there, it made me think that it will happen on a more
massive scale if we don't act.
To quote FDR in his last, shortest inaugural address: ``We have
learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is
dependent on the well-being of other nations far away.'' He was right
then and he is right now.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I didn't particularly come down here to discuss the
border, but I am delighted to discuss the border. I am glad my friends
are finally interested in the border.
We have watched for 2 years as this administration has turned a green
light on the border and has dramatically escalated the crossings. The
border has been the biggest single disaster of an administration that,
frankly, has been a failure in many different areas. The border,
incontestably, is a problem that is created by the administration,
owned by the administration, and my friends on the Democratic side of
the aisle that actually have presided over this mess.
As a matter of fact, when we bring something onto the floor to keep
the government open, I suspect there will be a border measure attached
to it. My friends could then eagerly embrace that and actually do
something to help on the border, a place where they fought us on, H.R.
2, our border security bill, where they have done nothing but support
the administration that has engineered this incredible crisis.
I remind my friends that former Democratic Secretary of Homeland
Security, who I admire a lot, Jeh Johnson, was once asked: What
constitutes a crisis at the border?
A thousand illegal entries a day.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday that number was 10,000-11,000. Have my friends
done anything about it? No.
We will probably put something on this floor pretty quickly, we
already have with H.R. 2. You didn't vote for that. We will now give
you an opportunity to both keep the government open and vote for border
security. You should be happy about that. If you want to talk about the
border, we will do it all day long on our side of the aisle.
Finally, with all due respect to my friends, you are not going to
support the defense bill. I don't have any problem with that. That is
your right. You have some concerns. You have some criticisms.
You are going to support--you do support aid for Ukraine, so we take
it out and we put it out there. This is something you can support. The
majority of our Members support it, too, but we have some that
certainly do not and are vocal in that opposition. Why don't we make
sure this gets through?
I am just mystified that this is somehow a problem. We guarantee you
something you want is going to pass the House and you are upset about
it.
You can express your displeasure in whatever way you want. I suspect
when the deal is here, the measure is on the floor, you will actually
vote for it. I will be happy and proud to vote with my friends on that
because on this issue I share their point of view.
As somebody who supports Ukraine, I think it is a good thing to make
sure this portion is going to pass for sure, this portion is going to
be visible to the world. There is strong bipartisan support and we can
move on.
Finally, I will just go back to the shutdown discussion. If we are
going to have that discussion, I suspect it will be in the next day or
two. They are having it in the United States Senate. Let's see how that
plays out.
I do remember my friends telling me the sky was falling on the debt
ceiling, but it didn't exactly happen that way. Once the House actually
passed something, it triggered a serious discussion, and it actually
got the Senate--which had done nothing--to actually act and sit down.
We bargained the position, and we got it through. Not everybody on my
side of the aisle agreed with that. Not everybody on my friends' side
agreed with it, but it got done.
I see the same process, I hope, working out now. On this one, at
least, why don't we make sure we take care of this particular piece of
Ukraine funding. I am sure at some point in the not too distant future
we will have a discussion about a larger supplemental, and I look
forward to that particular debate and discussion.
Please don't be upset because we are giving you what you want in this
area and ensuring that it actually passes and are trying to work with
you on it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of Democrats were sounding the alarm bells over
the debt ceiling issue because our credit was actually downgraded. That
is not a good thing. After we got a deal, which thank God we did, the
extreme MAGA Republicans blackmailed the Speaker of the House into not
respecting that deal. We have a problem right now.
I should also point out that we had a long discussion on the border,
and I am still puzzled why you are bringing a Homeland Security
appropriations bill to the floor that actually cuts funding for border
security. I don't quite get that.
You added a provision that says that if you pass an appropriations
bill on Homeland Security, it is kept at the desk, and it can't go to
the Senate for a vote unless this crazy bill, H.R. 2, is passed by the
Senate and signed into law by the President, without even changing a
comma. I don't know what brilliant legislative mind thought that up.
The bottom line is, this is not serious.
{time} 1530
Let me again read a quote from Senator McConnell. He said: A vote
against a standard short-term funding measure is a vote against paying
over $1 billion in salary for CBP and ICE agents.
I don't know how my Republican friends are going to defend the
border. Maybe with volunteers. Come on; I mean, at some point we have
to get serious.
Let me also just say--and, again, you can't make this stuff up--
Republicans are holding their first impeachment hearing today with just
hours to go until a shutdown.
What is wrong with them?
Breaking news indicates it was a failure. The hearing was a total
failure. Republican staffers are telling reporters that it was, ``an
unmitigated disaster.''
Another GOP staffer says, ``Comer has lost control.''
Another GOP person said, ``Comer botched this bad.''
This was supposed to be their big bombshell, and it was a total dud.
Not a single one of their witnesses could come up with a shred of
evidence against the President.
Let's see what they said. Their lead witness, Jonathan Turley, who
they roll out every chance they can, was on FOX News constantly, said:
I do not believe that the current evidence would support Articles of
Impeachment. That is their star witness.
Their other lead witness, Bruce Dubinsky, said: I am not here today
to even suggest that there was corruption, fraud, or any wrongdoing.
The list of Members on the other side saying this impeachment inquiry
is a sham is getting longer and longer by the hour, and the clock keeps
ticking toward a shutdown. Instead of a bipartisan CR that can pass,
here we are wasting time.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an
article from The Daily Beast, ``Star GOP Witness Immediately Pours Cold
Water on Biden Impeachment.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
[From the Daily Beast, Sept. 28, 2023]
Star GOP Witness Immediately Pours Cold Water on Biden Impeachment
(By Josh Fiallo)
Republicans' longshot attempt to impeach President Joe
Biden got off to a rocky start Thursday, with their star
witness, legal expert Jonathan Turley, outright saying he
[[Page H4796]]
doesn't see any evidence to support impeachment.
``I do not believe that the current evidence would support
articles of impeachment,'' he testified.
Turley, a Fox News legal analyst and D.C. lawyer who argued
against Donald Trump's 2019 impeachment, was called on by
House Republicans to testify in the first hearing of an
inquiry into whether Biden should be impeached. Republicans
have been desperately searching for evidence of wrongdoing
since well before Biden was elected, and the inquiry gives
them the ability to obtain materials like bank records.
While he conceded there was no evidence to support
impeachment, Turley did say that he believed the House had
``passed the threshold'' for holding an inquiry.
He speculated that information could emerge if an official
impeachment inquiry was launched. This, he said, should be
enough for Republicans to launch an official probe into the
president.
The less-than-convincing comment was seized on by the Biden
campaign, which shared a video of the quote to its social
channels.
Impeachment talks have swirled for nearly a year, with a
cohort of Republicans centering their claims around Hunter
Biden's shady business dealings and so-far-unsubstantiated
suspicions that his father engaged in corruption and abuse of
public office.
Mr. McGOVERN. Again, the gentleman mentioned what is wrong with
sending this separate bill to the Senate. I thought I explained that.
Let me explain it in two words: Paul and Tuberville. I mean, these
Senators are unhinged. Tuberville is holding up military promotions and
Paul delays everything. We see that he is trying to delay Senate
consideration on the CR.
Sending this over and expecting that there is quick action? I mean,
we all know what is going to happen, and we all know that people like
Marjorie Taylor Greene, who insisted on this, did so because they think
they have a better chance of derailing everything.
I find it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that nobody put their name on
this amendment. I don't know whose idea this was. I don't know who the
author of this particular provision is to strip out Ukraine money, but
anyway, that is a mystery that we will have to try to solve.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Smith), the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services
Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
personal attacks on Members of this body or the U.S. Senate.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, if you support Ukraine, you
cannot support this rule. My overarching concern here is for Ukraine. I
mean, let's start with the fact that there is a Ukrainian supplemental
that is needed to continue our support that the House Republicans are
refusing to bring to the floor in any form, and they have given no
indication whatsoever that they are going to bring that bill to the
floor.
That is frustrating because we have had a number of votes on support
for Ukraine, and it is very apparent that over 300 Members of this body
support that, an overwhelming majority of Republicans. Yet, as of
October 1, our ability to continue to support Ukraine also dies.
For all those Members on the other side of the aisle who support
Ukraine, why are you letting that support die? Why aren't you insisting
on moving forward with some kind of vote on the supplemental to help
them?
Let's focus on this particular rule. What this rule does is it takes
out the funding for Ukraine. If you support Ukraine, you can't vote for
this rule because it undoes the vote that we did yesterday. It very
publicly, for Putin and all the world to see, shows the U.S. House
voting to cut the funding for Ukraine. That is what it does. The only
reason it is here is because the people who don't support Ukraine want
it to be here.
Now, tip of the hat to Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz and all
the other folks who don't support Ukraine, who seem sympathetic to
Putin for reasons that I really don't want to think about, are forcing
this vote to advance their interests, and that is fine.
However, for all the people who claim to support Ukraine on the other
side of the aisle, how can they vote to take out the money that they
voted in favor of yesterday? I share the chairman's mystification at
what is going on here.
Now, I know there is a separate bill that will then fund Ukraine
except that that separate bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. It is
not going anywhere. Also, the vote on the rule, the rule strips out the
money from Ukraine. That is what it does. It undoes the vote from
yesterday.
Believe me, the Russians are good at propaganda. I have seen this
propaganda, and I guarantee you that what they will use and what a lot
of our allies will wonder about, why did the United States House vote
to strip the money away from Ukraine that it had voted for the day
before? It will be played as America backing off of its commitment from
Ukraine.
If you support Ukraine, you have to vote ``no.'' The people who don't
support Ukraine are the ones who brought this motion. It is a free
world. If you want to not support Ukraine, that is fine. Good for you
for advancing this. However, the people who support Ukraine standing up
here and voting for this? It is just unbelievable to me that we would
undermine the support for Ukraine given how important that fight is.
We should support Ukraine. Please vote against this rule.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, again, we have talked a little bit about the
border, which we are always delighted to talk about. We are happy to
see our friends interested in it because they have been so
uninterested.
I appreciate what Leader McConnell in the Senate had to say about it.
Frankly, it would help anything that he sends over here in terms of
keeping the government open to actually put some border security
measures in that particular piece of legislation. I understand there is
some consideration about that in the Senate. I would encourage the
Senate to do that. I think that would be a good thing.
Again, the reality is my friends haven't cared about the border. We
are going to try to give them a couple opportunities here in the coming
days to show us that they do because the policies they have pursued and
supported and this administration have advanced have been a disaster.
You know it, I know it, we know it.
There are 70,000 dead Americans thanks to the fentanyl flow. There
are tens of thousands of children that have been illegally trafficked
across the border. Many border agents will tell you we don't have
operational control on the border.
The other side doesn't want to do anything about that. If we are
going to put it in a measure to keep the government open, you know,
then maybe they will vote for that. We are going to hopefully give them
that opportunity. Again, we would encourage our friends in the Senate,
a Democratically-controlled Senate, to be fair, that have not done
anything about the border, they have not taken up any legislation,
maybe they will finally do something. That is part of the frustration
over here.
I have, frankly, great admiration and respect for the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Smith). I think he is one of the best legislators in
this Chamber. I just disagree. The reality is, none of the Members on
the other side are going to vote for the Defense bill that this money
is in. What kind of message will that send overseas?
If they bring down the bill with Ukrainian support--and they are
going to vote against it unanimously--that is a great message: We are
for Ukraine, but we are not for the vehicle that has Ukrainian support
and the defense of the United States? That is their choice. They
disagree with the bill, I get it. That is fair. Now they are concerned
because we actually put it in a format that they can vote for and that
it will pass with an overwhelming majority? That mystifies me. That is
just bizarre to me.
If they are worried about Russian propaganda, the reality is when and
if--and I hope they do not, but if they manage to bring down the
Defense bill with Ukrainian money in it, do they think Russian
propaganda will say, oh, well, gosh, that is okay, we won't say
anything about that--of course they will--and Democratic Members will
have voted to do it. We are offering an opportunity here to actually
make sure the money moves through the legislative process. I think it
is an incredibly fair thing to do.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have had a robust debate on the
border
[[Page H4797]]
and on keeping the government open. The reality here is, we ought to do
this for Ukraine, we ought to make sure the money is going to be set
aside and move forward with a bipartisan majority. I look forward to
voting for that. I suspect my friends will certainly oppose the rule.
However, when that legislation comes down here, I bet they all vote for
it. I hope they do, and I am going to encourage them to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
First of all, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma. I think he did the
best job he could defending this. He is very skillful in utilizing the
English language. I always appreciate listening to him on these
matters, but we all know what this is really about.
We all had a chance to vote our conscience up or down. Those who
voted to strike Ukraine aid can go home and tell their constituents
they voted to strike Ukraine's aid. It is not that complicated.
The fact of the matter is, Republicans have not done a single
productive thing this week. They passed only one appropriations bill
all year, and they are sitting here wasting time while the clock runs
out.
It is not just me saying that. Listen to our Republican colleagues.
Listen to Mike Lawler. He said, ``This is not conservative
Republicanism. This is stupidity, the idea we are going to shut the
government down when we don't control the Senate, we don't control the
White House. If the clown show of colleagues that refuse to actually
govern does not want to pass a CR, I will do everything we need to do
to make sure a CR passes.''
Congressman Marc Molinaro says, ``The goal here is to avert a
shutdown.'' Guess what? This procedural vote is his chance to stand up
and show the extremists. Instead of wasting our time in the clown show,
vote against this rule.
Congressman Anthony D'Esposito says he is ready to explore each and
every option possible to make sure that we don't shut the government
down. If Mr. D'Esposito is watching, vote against this rule.
Congressman Dusty Johnson says, ``The government should not shut
down. That would be an exceptionally stupid thing to do.'' Well, I
agree. He should vote down this rule so we can get to work on
preventing a shutdown.
I am going to say directly to all of my colleagues, this vote is
their chance to end the clown show. The only thing that matters around
here is their votes. Everything else is BS. Maybe they should focus
less on getting quotes and more on how they vote. Vote against this
clown show. Vote against this rule.
By the way, it works. It works for the Freedom Caucus and for the
most extreme elements of this Chamber. They vote down rules, and they
get these crazy things put into rules. They get everything they want.
It is enough of the talk. If there are moderate Republicans out there
who do not want this government to shut down, now is the time to put
their vote where their rhetoric is. Enough of the talk. We need action.
Finally, let me say to the chairman of the Rules Committee, the
chairman said 5 days ago, ``We will see how this week unfolds.'' Well,
this week has unfolded, and the Republican Party is still at war with
itself. We are still no closer to avoiding a shutdown.
What is happening here is so painfully transparent to anyone that is
watching. It is because all Kevin McCarthy seems to care about is
keeping his job. He should care about what a shutdown would do to his
constituents, but he doesn't. He appears to care more about keeping his
job than doing his job.
As I said last night, and I will say again, calling Republican
leadership a clown show is doing a disservice to actual working clowns.
This process is one of the most rotten, corrupt, rigged things I have
seen in all my time here. Shame on the Speaker. I have never seen
anything like this: Using the rules to overturn a democratic vote on
the House floor. Again, the vote was 339-93. 339-93. I mean, we don't
get votes like that around here. Yet, one Member--we don't even know
who is responsible for the language that we are dealing with here
today. No one put their name on it, but this is awful, and I strongly
reject this whole process.
I again make an appeal to the moderate Republicans, if there are any
out there, you know, stand with us, show us with their vote that they
want things to change now, that they do not want a shutdown. Vote down
this sham rule and force the leadership to go back up to the Rules
Committee and do what they should have done a long time ago, work on a
CR that can get a bipartisan vote in the House, a bipartisan vote in
the Senate, and we can avoid a shutdown, and we can prevent a lot of
misery for millions and millions of people in this country.
Shutdowns, contrary to what you hear by many on the other side of the
aisle, are a bad thing. It represents a failure of this institution to
do its most basic job, and that is keep the lights on. I urge my
colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
{time} 1545
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I certainly want to begin by returning my respect to my good friend,
the ranking member of the Rules Committee.
We argue, fight, disagree, but I know we have great respect for one
another. I certainly do for my friend. I have great personal affection
for him.
When we disagree, the tone might go up a little bit, but we remain
good friends. The reality is that we have a good working relationship,
one which I treasure.
I will say, on this one, I didn't come here particularly to talk
about the shutdown, but let's wait and see what happens.
This has nothing to do with the shutdown, absolutely nothing. There
is nothing saying: Beat this rule to say where you stand on the
shutdown.
They don't connect. This rule is about something else. It is about
Ukrainian aid, and frankly, it is also about enhancing the prospect
that the Defense appropriations bill will actually pass this body.
I think that if you look at what this does, it enhances the chance
that Ukraine aid will survive, no matter what.
My friends care about that. They are going to vote against a Defense
bill where the current money is. They are going to vote against it,
every one of them. It is their right to do that.
They have disagreements with other parts of the bill, so we took a
part of the bill they like and put it out on its own.
We are going to get a bipartisan vote on it. I think that is a good
thing. I think that is something that should be celebrated.
I think Congress will have a chance to make a strong statement about
Ukraine. I will actually be voting with my friends on the substance of
the bill.
That will probably be lost in the debate over the rule, but the
reality is that we will be on the same side. That is because we have
the same view of the issue. I think that is a very good thing.
I think more discussion about Ukraine in the Congress of the United
States is a very good thing because I think we have some profound
differences on our side of the aisle about the merits of this.
I actually agree more with my friends, but I want to have the
American people more involved in the debate. Sadly, the administration
has really not done that very effectively. They have been afraid for
the President to address the issue, for whatever reason. He ought to
lay out our goals, lay out our timelines, lay out the resources he
thinks we need to be committed.
I give him the benefit of the doubt. I think a war is pretty hard to
plan and lay out. It is not like you are building a bridge and you know
where you start, where you end, what you need. War is a contest of
wills.
To the President, my free advice would be that it is time for you to
talk to the American people and get them more deeply engaged in a
project that you and I happen to agree on. We need you to use the bully
pulpit more effectively than you have.
[[Page H4798]]
In the meantime, let's do what we can in the House of Representatives
to educate people on this particular issue.
Again, I remind my friends, on the government shutdown issue, we are
probably going to put something on the floor and give you a chance to
help on the border because you seem so anxious to do it.
We certainly hope that Senator McConnell--and I know he is working in
good faith; I have great respect for Senator McConnell--adds some
border security to whatever the Senate does.
I hope we do what we did on the debt ceiling: Sit down, negotiate,
find some common elements.
I thank my friend for reading all the Republicans that think a
government shutdown is a bad idea. He probably didn't know that the
Speaker thinks that, too. Most of us on our side do.
How you avoid that, how you fund the government, what other things
you do, is another matter entirely. We are working on that, and we will
see how the weekend goes.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, before I yield back the balance of my time, I
once again thank my friend for a robust debate. I look forward to
working with him on the Ukrainian issue on a variety of fronts going
forward.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my friends who care about Ukraine to look at
the Defense bill, as well. It needs to pass. If you are worried about
$300 million, it is a lot more important to pass an $880 billion bill
that defends our country and puts us in a position to defend liberty.
Do that and you will help Ukraine, and we can help them separately with
these funds.
I will work with my friends on the supplemental.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 730 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
Strike sections 2 and 3 (and redesignate the following
sections accordingly).
In section 2 (as redesignated), strike ``section 5'' and
insert ``section 3''.
In section 3 (as redesignated), strike ``section 4'' and
insert ``section 2''.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214,
nays 210, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 456]
YEAS--214
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--210
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Bush
Carter (TX)
Comer
Foxx
Gonzales, Tony
Gosar
Luna
Peltola
Williams (NY)
{time} 1621
Messrs. JACKSON of Illinois and Pascrell changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. WEBER of Texas and Mrs. KIGGANS of Virginia changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bucshon). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217,
noes 211, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 457]
AYES--217
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
[[Page H4799]]
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--211
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nehls
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Bush
Carter (TX)
Gonzales, Tony
Luna
Peltola
{time} 1629
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.
____________________