The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8404, RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the in the House section section on pages H8807-H8812 on Dec. 7.
The Department is one of the oldest in the US, focused primarily on law enforcement and the federal prison system. Downsizing the Federal Government, a project aimed at lowering taxes and boosting federal efficiency, detailed wasteful expenses such as $16 muffins at conferences and board meetings.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8404, RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1510 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1510
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 8404) to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1510, providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 8404, the Respect for Marriage Act. The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary that the House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 8404 and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. Speaker, tonight's rule provides for the consideration of the Respect for Marriage Act, and I am proud to support this rule to move that bill to the floor.
The Respect for Marriage Act will repeal the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act once and for all and ensure that all across America, families in same-sex and interracial marriage are afforded the respect and legal rights and protections they deserve.
Passage of this bill is a critical step to protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation or race, following the Supreme Court's recent decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. That decision and recent statements by the Supreme Court's new rightwing majority have left families across the country and in my district worried about the future of marriage equality.
The Respect for Marriage Act will ensure long-term stability and important statutory protection for all marriages. The Respect for Marriage Act will safeguard the protections laid out in Obergefell v. Hodges, as well as prior case law, that protect important fundamental privacy and liberty rights, all of which were improperly called into question in the Dobbs decision and related dicta.
This is a matter of respecting the fundamental rights, freedoms, and liberties of our neighbors, family members, and fellow citizens. Everyone should have the right to marry the person they love and live free from discrimination, regardless of where in this great land they live or travel.
In addition to securing the respect for those marriages, this bill will also secure respect for families across America and in all of our communities and families.
The issues addressed by this bill have been thoroughly debated in this body, in the Senate, and by the American public. The Respect for Marriage Act will ensure long-term stability and important statutory protections for all.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation and to reaffirm the fundamental right to marriage equality.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I will yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to speak on the bill included within this rule, Senate amendment to H.R. 3404, the Respect for Marriage Act.
Mr. Speaker, as you well know, this bill previously came before the House. Unfortunately, at the time, the legislation was a byproduct of a very truncated process, having received no committee markup and being parachuted from the Speaker's office straight to the floor.
In response to the rushed House process, the Senate actually undertook a more comprehensive amendment process on the floor, giving Senators the opportunity to amend the legislation, something we did not have the opportunity to do. I am encouraged that the amended version from the Senate has tried to address some of the religious liberty concerns that myself and other Members have highlighted.
Even though I can report that this bill is much improved from its original form, there are still problems with this legislation and its possible implications for religious institutions and matters of conscience.
It is regrettable that certain amendments that would safeguard religious liberty, such as Senator Lee's and Congressman Roy's amendments prohibiting the government from removing a nonprofit organization's tax-exempt status based on religious beliefs, those were all blocked.
Had those additional amendments received a fair hearing and as a result been adopted, we could have made significant progress toward addressing the very serious and legitimate concerns about the consequences of this legislation and its potential curtailment of a fundamental American right.
Today's bill, while a better product than before, should have been better, and it is regrettable that we are at this point and this is the case.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, families in my community are justly skeptical of process arguments which have been regularly weaponized to roll back the rights, the freedoms, the liberties that they so richly deserve to exercise. So I think at this point, there has been plenty of process. There has been amendment process in both Chambers, and it is time to pass this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), a colleague and certainly a well-spoken member of the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I rise in opposition to the rule. I made my position clear in the Committee on Rules earlier this week, and I think it is very much a position held by a large number of my colleagues.
It is a shame that we are sitting here debating the institution of marriage but without actual debate. We are here, we are going to debate this rule, it will be a few minutes, and then boom, we are going to go vote. We are not going to have any real debate on this tomorrow either.
I offered an amendment in the Committee on Rules, an amendment to add protections for religious liberty, and it was killed on a budget point of order, a budget point of order that it said would cost around
$500,000 or more. For what? For damages that an individual American might receive if successful in challenging the Department of Justice if their rights were being infringed.
Let me be clear. It was going to be killed on a point of order out of the Committee on Rules because it could be successful in protecting the rights of Americans, when you have got a piece of legislation that has a private right of action put into it, a sword to be used against the American people if they exercise their closely held religious beliefs. And that is the truth.
It is a bill that was passed off of this floor with no hearing in the House Committee on the Judiciary, sent to the Senate in July, with no protection for religious liberty in it, and then provisions were added in the Senate to provide some very bare minimum, narrow religious liberty protections, only for the solemnization of marriage.
When an individual tries to offer an amendment to try to protect the rights of all Americans to be free from persecution--if, for example, you are a school, a religious school, that might not want to hire somebody in a same-sex marriage because it is against your closely held religious beliefs, you might have to litigate that now. The response by the other side is: Oh, my gosh, the Constitution exists; oh, my gosh, RFRA, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, exists.
So the shield that people had before is now the thing that you have to go litigate in court and hire lawyers to defend yourself for exercising your closely held religious beliefs against the sword that this legislation provides. That is the truth of what we are dealing with here.
We offered an amendment in good faith, just like Senator Mike Lee did, a bipartisan amendment, by the way. We are getting no debate, no ability to offer that amendment on the floor, no ability to have a debate on that amendment, no ability to actually have a conversation about the free exercise of religion and protecting people's closely held religious beliefs.
That is why people are sick of this institution. We do not debate. We do not amend. We simply jam stuff through the Committee on Rules and then we walk away and go give speeches on the steps. That is no way to do business. I hope we change that in the new Congress. But this is not the way to do business in the House of Representatives.
{time} 1915
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we believe that the gentleman's amendment is both duplicative and unnecessary.
The Senate spent months crafting a bipartisan compromise to amend H.R. 8404 to address the religious liberty concerns that were raised by Republicans in the House and Senate. Sections 6 and 7 of this legislation ensure no impact on religious liberty.
Adopting this new and unnecessary amendment would unsettle the Senate's carefully crafted compromise and delay the enactment of this necessary, historic, and bipartisan legislation.
If the House passes this legislation, it will be sent straight to the President's desk to become law. This Congress is coming to a close, and we don't have the time to make changes to this legislation.
This bill has gone through both the House and Senate and through the American public, and I believe it needs to be signed into law as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters in support of this legislation from the Interfaith Alliance, from U.S. Jewish organizations, and from eight leaders of faith-based organizations representing tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of religious institutions.
November 28, 2022. Hon. Tammy Baldwin, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. Susan Collins, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Baldwin and Collins: The Respect for Marriage Act is a simple way to provide legal stability for all married couples and their families. Within our communities, we approach matters of marriage, family, and identity differently. This bill recognizes this diversity of belief while ensuring that same-sex and interracial couples are treated with equal respect by federal and state governments.
As faith-based organizations, we recognize that the First Amendment right to religious freedom is a cornerstone of our democracy. The bipartisan substitute amendment provides important clarification around the interaction between the Respect for Marriage Act and the robust religious freedom protections guaranteed under federal law. Crafted in the spirit of collaboration, the amendment protects the right to believe as we choose while leaving intact the core mission of the legislation to respect marriages.
The freedom to marry who one loves is a matter of human dignity and supported by a majority of almost every major religious tradition in the United States. We urge the Senate to adopt the bipartisan amendment in full, without further amendment needed to protect religious freedom.
Respectfully,
Interfaith Alliance, ADL (The Anti-Defamation League), Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Center for Faith, Justice, and Reconciliation, The Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Faithful America, Hindu American Foundation, Hindus for Human Rights, Jewish Women International, Keshet.
Muslims for Progressive Values, National Council of Jewish Women, NETWORK Catholic Social Justice Lobby, Presbyterian Church (USA) Office of Public Witness, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association, The Sikh Coalition, Sojourners, Union for Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist Association, United Church of Christ.
____
Washington, DC, September 6, 2022.
U.S. Jewish Organizations' Letter to Senate Supporting Respect for
Marriage Act
On behalf of the Union for Reform Judaism, Keshet, and 108 additional Jewish organizations, the following letter was shared in support of the Respect for Marriage Act (S. 4556):
Dear Senator: On behalf of the 100 undersigned national, state, and local Jewish organizations, we write to express our support for the Respect for Marriage Act (S. 4556). Driven by our Jewish values, we are committed to supporting laws that protect the civil rights and individual liberties of all people. The Respect for Marriage Act would codify three landmark Supreme Court cases, Obergefell v. Hodges; Windsor v. United States; and Loving v. Virginia, and therefore the basic rights of same-sex and interracial marriage. We urge Congress to swiftly pass this important bill.
Jewish tradition teaches that all people are created b'tzelem Elohim, in the Divine image, and are worthy of dignity and respect. As organizations grounded in Jewish values and beliefs, we have an ethical and moral responsibility to fight for a society that ensures the humanity of all people. Every person is entitled to marry who they love--regardless of sexual orientation or race.
Indeed, support for same-sex marriage protections extends across the faith community, and throughout the country. A majority of all faith groups--including 77 percent of Jews, 57 percent of mainline Protestants, and 57 percent of Catholics support same sex marriage. This view is shared by seven in ten Americans--including 83 percent of Democrats, 73 percent of independents, and 55 percent of Republicans.
Additionally, the Respect for Marriage Act would ensure that all federal benefits are available to married couples regardless of the state in which they live. Congress has a responsibility to pursue economic equity for all, regardless of geographical location, and include historically marginalized groups in this pursuit.
The right to marry who one loves is a matter of human dignity. Our faith teaches us the kol yisrael arevim ezh bazeh, we are all responsible for each other, and therefore must take action to create a community for which we all can take pride.
As Jewish organizations, we believe firmly that all people deserve the right to marry who they love, regardless of sexual orientation or race. We urge Congress to pass the Respect for Marriage Act.
Sincerely,
Union for Reform Judaism, Keshet, ADL (Anti-Defamation League), ADL Austin Region, ADL Florida, ADL New England, ADL New York/New Jersey, ADL San Diego, ADL Southeast, ADL Southwest, ADL Texoma, ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, Ameinu, American Conference of Cantors, American Jewish World Service, Avodah, Aytzim, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Beth Chayim Chadashim, B'nai B'rith Connect, California Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-CA), Carolina Jews for Justice, Central Conference of American Rabbis, Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philantrohpies, Coastal Roots Farm, Columbia Jewish Congregation, Congregation Agudas Achim, Austin Texas, Congregation Har HaShem, Boulder, CO; Congregation Rodeph Sholom, Congregation Sha'ar Zahav, Florida Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC- FL), Greater Miami Jewish Federation, Hadassah, The Women's Zionist Organization of America, Havurat Shalom, Andover MA, IKAR, Illinois Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-IL), J Street, Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action, Jewish Community Action, Jewish Community Center of Asheville, Jewish Community Federation and Endowment Fund, Jewish Community Relations Council
(JCRC) of the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, Jewish Community Relations Council of Broward County, Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston, Jewish Community Relations Council of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin, Sonoma, Alameda, and Contra Costa Counties, Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), Jewish Council on Urban Affairs.
Jewish Emergent Network, Jewish Family Service Houston, Jewish Family Service of Greater New Orleans, Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles, Jewish Family Service of San Diego, Jewish Federation of Greater Ann Arbor, Jewish Federation of Greater Portland, Jewish Labor Committee, Jewish Teen Education and Engagement Network, LLC (JTEEN), Jewish Women International, Jewish Youth Climate Movement, Jews for a Secular Democracy, Jews United for Justice (JUFJ), Jewtina y Co., JQY (Jewish Queer Youth), JYCA (Jewish Youth for Community Action), Kane Street Synagogue, Lab/Shul, Makom Shelanu.
Malkhut: progressive Jewish spirituality in Queens, Massachusetts Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC- MA), MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, Men of Reform Judaism, Milwaukee Jewish Federation, Mishkan Chicago, Moving Traditions, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Jewish Women New York, Network of Jewish Human Service Agencies, New Israel Fund, New Jersey Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-NJ), New York Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-NY), Ohio Religious Acton Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-OH), Peninsula Jewish Community Center, Pennsylvania Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC-PA), Rabbinical Assembly, Reconstructing Judaism, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association.
Romemu, SAI-Judaism that Stands for All, Saul Mirowitz Jewish Community School, Shalom Austin, Sixth Circle Consulting, Society for Humanistic Judaism, St. Paul Jewish Federation, T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, TBE, Temple Beth Ahm Yisrael, Temple Beth El
(Tacoma), Temple Beth El of Boca Raton, Temple Emanu-El of Westfield, Temple Kol Emeth, Temple Ohabei Shalom, Temple Shir Tikva, Texas Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
(RAC-TX), The Shalom Center, The Temple--Atlanta GA, The Workers Circle, Tivnu: Building Justice, Tribe 12, Tzedek Georgia, USY, Women of Reform Judaism.
____
November 15, 2022. Re The Respect for Marriage Act (H.R. 8404) U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20515
Dear Senators: We are leaders of faith-based organizations representing tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of religious institutions. All our organizations hold to an understanding of marriage as between one man and one woman. Many of us privately expressed concerns about the House- passed version of the Respect for Marriage Act.
We are gratified by the substitute religious freedom language offered by Senators Collins, Baldwin, Sinema, Portman, Tillis, and Romney. It adequately protects the core religious freedom concerns raised by the bill, including tax exempt status, educational funding, government grants and contracts, and eligibility for licenses, certification, and accreditation. If passed, it would continue to build on the congressional wisdom represented by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).
Attached are many statements from individual organizations.
Sincerely, Elder Jack N. Gerard,
The Quorum of the Seventy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Melissa Reid,
Director of Government Affairs, Seventh-day Adventist Church-North American Division. Nathan J. Diament,
Executive Director for Public Policy, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. Shirley Hoogstra,
President, Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. Rev. Justin E. Giboney,
President, AND Campaign. Stanley Carlson-Thies,
Founder and Senior Director, Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance. Stephanie Summers,
CEO, Center for Public Justice. Tim Schultz,
President, 1st Amendment Partnership.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would inquire as to whether or not the gentlewoman has additional speakers.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for the Respect for Marriage Act.
In all my decades of public service, I have never wavered in my support for the LGBTQ+ community. In 1990, I introduced the first legislation in New York State history to grant legal recognition to same-sex couples. When the Defense of Marriage Act was introduced in 1996, I was one of 67 House Members to vote against it. I knew then what I know now: DOMA was a bigoted, discriminatory solution to a problem that never existed.
It never made sense that I could get into a cab and meet someone that I have never met before, a cab driver, and marry a complete stranger. You could marry the driver that day. Yet a bold, brave New Yorker, and a friend of mine, named Edie Windsor could not have her marriage recognized. She took that fight to the Supreme Court and won.
Mr. Speaker, the Respect for Marriage Act will ensure LGBTQ equality, but much more work needs to be done. I thank Chairman Nadler for this bill.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a former chairman of the Rules Committee.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it is important what we are doing here because our friends, the Democrats, were arguing that there is no additional rights of action, that this isn't going to change anything. In fact, this same discussion that we are having, if that is true, and we are going to say that we take them at their word, that would mean no rights of action would take place as a result of this law.
Any judge would be able to look at the reason why we are passing this and the intent that would be on the floor of the House of Representatives, and that is what is being stated here tonight: No right of action; that is not what this is about.
I would hope that we would understand, just as when I was the chairman of the Rules Committee, that what we did and the way we talked on this floor is what the intent would be for a judge, for a lawsuit. If something were to happen, they would open up the Record, just as we are doing here tonight, Mr. Speaker, and a judge, magistrate, Federal judge, State district judge, anyone ruling on this constitutional right would be able to see that this is not about a right of action.
So, let's be clear. That was stated point blank in this discussion on the floor of the House of Representatives. It was reiterated up at the Rules Committee at the time that the rule came to the floor. That is what is stated. I will accept that as their word.
I thank the gentleman from Lewisville, Texas, for his time and service to the Rules Committee. I spent 20 years on the darn committee, 6 years as chairman, and I understood when we handled matters that we spoke clearly and that we spoke directly about the intent of the law. I have heard enough to understand that, and I appreciate Mr. Burgess for yielding to me.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I would again inquire whether my colleague has any further testimony.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, if the gentlewoman is prepared to close.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
In closing, I would note that today's rule is, in fact, the product of a very rushed legislative process. The bill should have been subject to regular order so that it could be improved to address religious liberty concerns noted by my fellow Members.
The very fact that we have had this discussion here on the floor to me indicates that there is some ambiguity. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) and Chairman Sessions for coming and raising the argument.
Section 6 of this bill provides protection of religious liberty, but only if you are religious enough. If you are a church, you are protected. If you are an individual or a school, you may not be, and you may be subject to that private right of action.
What we are voting on today is emblematic of how this one-party Democratic rule has been enforced in Washington, D.C., over the past 2 years. I am discouraged to see the majority is still focused on passing partisan messaging bills which will not address the problems they purportedly claim to want to solve.
This week, we are considering partisan bills instead of focusing our efforts on things like funding the Federal Government, maybe even the authorization for the Nation's defense, one of the requirements under the Constitution that we fulfill.
Unfortunately, tonight, this is a continuation of a discouraging and regrettable trend that I hope will be revisited by a new Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, tonight's vote should be an easy one. The Respect for Marriage Act passed the Senate with broad bipartisan support, and the bill is supported by over 70 percent of Americans. It provides critical safeguards for a right that many Americans have already exercised and rely upon for the protection and prosperity of their families.
The Respect for Marriage Act is historic legislation to protect the marriages of same-sex and interracial couples. I don't think history will look kindly on those who, when given the ability to protect the rights and freedoms of their constituents, chose to say no.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the LGBTQ community, my cousins, my dearest friends and neighbors, religious communities across the country, and, of course, the city of brotherly love and sisterly affection, which I am so proud to represent, I stand in strong support of the Respect for Marriage Act, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, nays 204, not voting 10, as follows:
YEAS--217
Adams Aguilar Allred Auchincloss Axne Barragan Bass Beatty Bera Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Bourdeaux Bowman Boyle, Brendan F. Brown (MD) Brown (OH) Brownley Bush Bustos Butterfield Carbajal Cardenas Carson Carter (LA) Cartwright Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Cherfilus-McCormick Chu Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Cooper Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis, Danny K. Dean DeFazio DeGette DeLauro DelBene Demings DeSaulnier Dingell Doggett Doyle, Michael F. Escobar Eshoo Espaillat Evans Fletcher Foster Frankel, Lois Gallego Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Golden Gomez Gonzalez, Vicente Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Higgins (NY) Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Huffman Jackson Lee Jacobs (CA) Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Jones Kahele Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Khanna Kildee Kilmer Kim (NJ) Kind Kirkpatrick Krishnamoorthi Kuster Lamb Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lawrence Lawson (FL) Lee (CA) Lee (NV) Leger Fernandez Levin (CA) Levin (MI) Lieu Lofgren Lowenthal Luria Lynch Malinowski Maloney, Carolyn B. Maloney, Sean Manning Matsui McBath McCollum McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Mfume Moore (WI) Morelle Moulton Mrvan Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal Neguse Newman Norcross O'Halleran Ocasio-Cortez Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pascrell Payne Peltola Perlmutter Peters Phillips Pingree Pocan Porter Pressley Price (NC) Quigley Raskin Rice (NY) Ross Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (NY) Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Schrader Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, David Sewell Sherman Sherrill Sires Slotkin Smith (WA) Soto Spanberger Speier Stansbury Stanton Stevens Strickland Suozzi Swalwell Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Trone Underwood Vargas Veasey Velazquez Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Welch Wexton Wild Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) Yarmuth
NAYS--204
Aderholt Allen Amodei Armstrong Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Banks Barr Bentz Bice (OK) Biggs Bilirakis Bishop (NC) Boebert Bost Brady Brooks Buchanan Bucshon Budd Burchett Burgess Calvert Cammack Carey Carl Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Cawthorn Chabot Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Comer Conway Crawford Crenshaw Curtis Davidson Davis, Rodney DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Duncan Dunn Ellzey Emmer Estes Fallon Feenstra Ferguson Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Flood Flores Foxx Franklin, C. Scott Fulcher Gaetz Gallagher Garbarino Garcia (CA) Gibbs Gimenez Gohmert Gonzales, Tony Gonzalez (OH) Good (VA) Gooden (TX) Gosar Granger Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Green (TN) Greene (GA) Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Harris Harshbarger Hartzler Hern Herrell Herrera Beutler Hice (GA) Higgins (LA) Hill Hinson Hollingsworth Hudson Huizenga Issa Jackson Jacobs (NY) Johnson (LA) Johnson (OH) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Katko Keller Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kim (CA) Kustoff LaHood LaMalfa Lamborn Latta LaTurner Lesko Letlow Long Loudermilk Lucas Luetkemeyer Mace Malliotakis Mann Massie Mast McCarthy McCaul McClain McClintock McKinley Meijer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Moolenaar Mooney Moore (AL) Moore (UT) Mullin Nehls Newhouse Norman Obernolte Owens Palazzo Palmer Pence Perry Pfluger Posey Reschenthaler Rodgers (WA) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rosendale Rouzer Roy Salazar Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Sempolinski Sessions Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Steel Stefanik Steil Steube Stewart Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Turner Upton Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Wagner Walberg Waltz Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zeldin
NOT VOTING--10
Bergman Buck Cheney Donalds Kinzinger McHenry Murphy (NC) Rice (SC) Rutherford Ryan (OH)
{time} 2001
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, please accept this personal explanation as I was unexpectedly detained during vote proceedings. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 512.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Axne (Pappas) Baird (Bucshon) Bass (Cicilline) Beatty (Neguse) Brooks (Fleischmann) Brown (MD) (Beyer) DeFazio (Pallone) Doyle, Michael F. (Pallone) Duncan (Norman) Dunn (Salazar) Evans (Beyer) Gosar (Weber (TX)) Grijalva (Neguse) Hayes (Neguse) Herrera Beutler (Stewart) Hice (GA) (Boebert) Huffman (Levin (CA)) Jacobs (NY) (Sempolinski) Johnson (TX) (Pallone) Kahele (Correa) Kildee (Pappas) Kirkpatrick (Pallone) Lawrence (Garcia (TX)) Lawson (FL) (Wasserman Schultz) Lieu (Beyer) Malliotakis (Gimenez) Maloney, Sean P. (Pappas) Mfume (Beyer) Napolitano (Correa) Neal (Beyer) Newman (Correa) O'Halleran (Pappas) Palazzo (Fleischmann) Pascrell (Pallone) Payne (Pallone) Pressley (Neguse) Roybal-Allard (Correa) Ruppersberger (Sarbanes) Rush (Beyer) Simpson (Fulcher) Sires (Pallone) Swalwell (Correa) Titus (Pallone) Torres (NY) (Pappas) Wagner (Fleischmann) Welch (Pallone) Wenstrup (LaHood) Yarmuth (Beyer)
ENSURING LIBERTY FOR UKRAINE
(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. KAPTUR. Madam Speaker, today is day number 286 of Russia's unprovoked, illegal terrorist war on Ukraine.
As Congress works to complete our 2023 appropriations bills, it is critical that the appropriation accounts for defense and energy security be fully funded. Let us be mindful that liberty has real enemies.
Our Nation, in alliance with the free nations of the world, cannot miss a beat in ensuring NATO remains the strongest defender of global liberty.
Vladimir Putin's criminal war on its innocent neighbor began in 2014. By crossing Ukraine's sovereign border, Putin violated every tenet of international law that has existed since World War II.
Then in February of this year, Russia unleashed its full terror. The free world must draw a bold line in the sand against Russia's illegal behavior.
Any nation that does not respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independence of adjoining nations must be brought to full reckoning.
The free world cannot stand by idly. Putin's war machine must be defeated.
The people of Ukraine are fighting valiantly for their own freedom. May the bills being drafted as I speak ensure our Nation meets its obligation as liberty's primary defender.
____________________
