[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.

                          ____________________