Providing for Consideration of H.R. Ukraine Security Assistance and Oversight Supplemental Appropriations Act, Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. Department of Defense Appropriations Act, and Providing for Further Consideration of H.R. Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2024

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.''.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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?

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 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 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.

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,

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,

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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 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.

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''.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source