Approving certain regulations to implement provisions of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 relating to labor-management relations with respect to employees of the House of Representatives covered under section 220(e), and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1097 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), 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

Madam Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1097, providing for consideration H.R. 903, the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act under a structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security. It self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Thompson, makes in order eight amendments, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2499 and H.R. 5129 under structured rules. It provides 1 hour of debate for each equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. It self-executes manager amendments from Chairman Scott to both bills. It makes in order 8 amendments and 17 amendments respectively, and it provides for one motion to recommit for both bills.

The rule provides en bloc authority to Chairmen Thompson and Scott.

Further, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7691, the Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman DeLauro and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also deems passage of H. Res. 1096, a resolution, Recognizing Congressional Workers' Right to Organize.

The rule also provides recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority through June 10.

Finally, the rule postpones requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on May 10 and May 11 through May 18.

Madam Speaker, the rule contains five essential points of action.

H.R. 903, the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act of 2021: This legislation seeks to afford TSA employees similar rights, protections, and benefits afforded to most other Federal workers across the country in order to improve the agency's operations, workforce retention, and morale.

H.R. 2499 is the bipartisan Federal Firefighters Fairness Act of 2022. This legislation establishes a science-based list of diseases for which an automatic presumption of work-related illness would apply for Federal firefighters who get sick, provided that they are employed in fire protection activities for at least 5 years. It also establishes a process for adding other diseases based on scientific data and analysis going forward.

H.R. 5129 is the bipartisan Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022. It reauthorizes and improves the popular and effective community services block grant program to help reach even more Americans, provide more community development across the country, and further reduce poverty.

The rule also contains a resolution recognizing the right of congressional staff to unionize.

Finally, it includes H.R. 7691, the Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2022. Madam Speaker, generations to come will look back at this moment to ask: What did our generation do when Vladimir Putin and his army invaded the sovereign nation of Ukraine and tried not only to crush its democracy and violate the spirit of its people but vaporize and annex the entire nation?

Well, today, let future generations observe the Biden administration and a bipartisan Congress has not only already provided more than $4 billion in security assistance to Ukraine, almost all of it coming after the February 24 invasion, but today, we are voting to provide nearly $40 billion to address the immediate and near-term security, economic, and humanitarian needs of the Ukrainian people that are urgent and desperate.

We will provide $6 billion for training, equipment, weapons, logistics support, supplies, salaries and stipends, and intelligence support; $4.35 billion in emergency food assistance, medical equipment, and other humanitarian aid; and billions more for humanitarian relief for the millions of refugees displaced by Putin's violence and bombardment of communities in Ukraine.

The aid that we vote on today will come with the fervent solidarity, admiration, and love of the American people. We are in awe of President Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian people, and their army. They have been hanging tough against terrible odds and terrible violence in a splendid display of democratic patriotism for their country. Their resolve is heroic, and it is breathtaking to behold.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman asks us to justify the use of American resources in supporting our democratic allies in Ukraine.

How would we justify the use of these resources?

Well, let's start with this. The Ukrainian people and President Zelenskyy have asked for our help. They have asked for these resources, and they need these resources in order to beat back a brutal, bloody, and illegal innovation by Vladimir Putin, who is violating the laws of war on a daily basis.

They have killed thousands of civilians, they have killed more than 150 children, murdering them, and his Army is raping and killing women, leaving their corpses in the street.

So we have a democracy trying to defend its sovereign borders against an autocrat who wants to rebuild the Russian empire, Vladimir Putin, the former chief of the KGB, who said that the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union.

We were hoping that we would have a unanimous, bipartisan statement today in favor of aid to the besieged people of Ukraine. Instead, we get more voices of defeatism, pessimism, and gloom.

We have heard it before. We heard Representative Cawthorn who said: Remember that Zelenskyy is a thug, remember that the Ukrainian Government is incredibly corrupt, and is incredibly evil and has been pushing woke ideologies.

We heard from Steve Bannon who said: No Republican should vote for any money for Ukraine, zero dollars for Ukraine.

We are hearing it from other candidates around the country, J.D. Vance, who says: I have got to be honest with you; I don't really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.

Madam Speaker, the democratic world is under siege by Vladimir Putin and his filthy army, which is murdering children, raping women, killing civilians. Which side are we on?

The Biden administration is rallying the democratic world, rallying the NATO countries. We should be standing on a unanimous, bipartisan basis with the people of Ukraine.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Madam Speaker, here is a formula for the destruction of democracy: Repeating Putin's propaganda and disinformation and appeasing imperialist assaults on sovereign nations.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Speaker, the very distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado called the President of the United States, or likened him to, I think she said, a lying, dog-faced pony soldier.

We obviously could have taken those words down, but we have serious business to do here, and unlike some of our colleagues on the other side, we are not interested in censoring other people's speech. We want the whole world to see how the gentlewoman from Colorado speaks in public as a Member of Congress. We want everyone to look at that.

Meantime, we have come here tonight, Madam Speaker, to fight for the rights of the TSA workforce. More than 50,000 workers. We are giving them the same rights that other Federal workers have. We came here to fight for the rights of Federal firefighters, tens of thousands of them, who will be able to benefit from this legislation if and when they get sick from illnesses caused by their work as firefighters.

We came here to expand and improve the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022, a bipartisan piece of legislation. Despite what was said about it on the other side, I believe there were eight Members of the minority who voted for it in the House Education and Labor Committee.

We are here to recognize the right of congressional staff to unionize, and we are here most significantly, Madam Speaker, on the Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act.

It is for that act that the antics and the diatribes of our colleagues are so profoundly disappointing to those of us who have come here to support President Zelenskyy and the heroic people of Ukraine who are resisting a brutal, illegal aggression by Vladimir Putin and his army.

And we were hoping that we would have a bipartisan, unanimous support for this legislation to render the military and strategic economic and humanitarian aid that our democratic allies need, and they are asking for and deserve, to fight off this illegal criminal aggression by Vladimir Putin, who is not a genius but a war criminal and a mass murderer. That is what he is.

We are very proud of the work that President Biden has been doing in unifying the democratic world against the autocrat Vladimir Putin and his naked, bloody aggression against the people of Ukraine, which has cost the lives of thousands of civilians already. We have seen the war crime of rape spread at the hands of Russian's filthy soldiers, and we have seen them kill children, blow up schools and hospitals.

We don't see anything remotely like the seriousness and the solemnity that we would expect of Members of the United States Congress. Instead, they put up profanity, they mock the President of the United States, they make a disgrace of their own party by the way they behave on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, Vladimir Putin and his cheerleaders all over the world thought they would make quick work of the people of Ukraine and President Zelenskyy. They only had supplies for less than a week. Everybody thought it was just going to be game over, as some of our colleagues have said; that Vladimir Putin would just cut right through them.

But you know what they weren't counting on, Madam Speaker? They weren't counting on the spirit of a democratic people, the noble people of Ukraine who have heroically resisted every criminal aggressive act by Vladimir Putin and his autocratic cheerleaders around the world.

So today, 2\1/2\ months later, President Biden, having rallied the democratic world, having unified NATO, comes back to us and asks for nearly $40 billion in aid to support the strategic needs, the security needs, the economic needs, the humanitarian needs of a population that is reeling from the war.

Madam Speaker, we say the American people are here to support the Ukrainian people. That is what we are doing here tonight.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Our colleagues don't seem to want to talk about the chaos and the violence and the bloodshed that has been unleashed on the people of Ukraine. I am really shocked that they don't want to talk about it, but they want to talk about free speech.

Great. Let's talk about free speech in Russia.

More than 15,000 people arrested and detained as they crush the antiwar movement in Russia, as he jails political opponents in Russia. And they haven't said a word about that.

Have they said anything about the opponents of the war in Russia who have been thrown into jail? No.

They are talking about a board in America that I wasn't even aware existed--I am not sure it does--that has never thrown anybody in a jail.

How do they feel about Russian critics of the war being thrown into jail? How do they feel about more than 8 million Ukrainians who have been displaced by the war, who are living in the homes of the Polish people who have heroically opened their doors to them? They say nothing about that.

Do they think that Vladimir Putin is the leader of a democracy?

Is there any one of them who will stand up and say that Vladimir Putin is an autocrat, an authoritarian, a would-be totalitarian?

Do any of them remember that Vladimir Putin was the head of the KGB?

Is that their ideal model for civil liberties? Vladimir Putin, who said that the collapse of the Soviet Union is the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century?

Is this Abraham Lincoln's party we are hearing today? Or is it a cult of Donald Trump?

Madam Speaker, we have to decide which side America is going to be on. The democratic world has risen as one to support the people of Ukraine, and yet, our friends don't seem to want to talk about that. They don't want to seem to support this effort, which is extraordinary to me, as the people of Ukraine are doing whatever they can to fight this naked, illegal aggression, this unilateral war of aggression; unprovoked, unjustified, a violation of international law in every way.

Madam Speaker, it is incumbent upon us as the leader of the democratic world, if that is still what we want to be, to support democracies under attack by authoritarian regimes.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the Representative, Mr. Raskin, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, we are here to discuss a rule providing for consideration of H.R. 903, the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act; H.R. 5129, the Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of 2022; and H.R. 2499, the Federal Firefighters Fairness Act, which would provide needed benefits to firefighters and other Federal workers suffering from occupation-related diseases and simplifies the process of providing care and benefits for these workers to ensure they will not be caught up in bureaucratic red tape. Finally, the rule provides for consideration of a supplemental appropriation to Ukraine to ensure that they have the necessary funds to counter Russian aggression.

The community services block grant, or CSBG, aims to reduce poverty by improving economic security for low-income individuals and creating economic opportunities in their communities. This program has not been updated since 1998 and is in dire need of reform, but H.R. 5129 fails to accomplish that goal.

It continues to let States set the benchmarks for progress and allows ineffective programs to continue receiving taxpayer dollars.

It increases the income thresholds to 200 percent above the Federal poverty line, stretching Federal resources thinner and effectively robbing those most in need of help.

It allows grantees to use their facilities for voter registration, completely distracting from the program's goal to fight poverty and risking the introduction of partisan activity into nonpartisan efforts.

Worst of all, this bill cuts existing protections for faith-based charities. Without these protections, organizations that have fought poverty for years could be forced to remove their faithful beliefs from their work if they

want to continue providing important poverty relief. Why would we want to limit the number of organizations participating in this cause?

H.R. 903, the Rights for the TSA Workforce Act, has so many flaws, I don't have time to mention them all. This bill goes against Congress' intent when it enacted the Aviation and Transportation Security Act to create the Transportation Security Administration, or the TSA, in November 2001 following the 9/11 terror attacks.

At the time, Congress recognized the importance of providing unique authorities to ensure that TSA could carry out its national security mission. Converting all 60,000 TSA employees into title 5 would limit that flexibility.

Under ATSA, the agency may exercise one-step removal for serious offenses such as intentional security breaches, theft, failure of drug and alcohol tests while on duty, or arrests for certain criminal offenses. Under H.R. 903, an employee who knowingly allows guns or explosives through a security checkpoint may no longer be immediately fired.

Furthermore, under this bill, matters of national security could be negotiable under collective bargaining negotiations. The flexibility that Congress intended for TSA would allow for the imposition of, for example, enhanced screening procedures based on credible threats. Under this bill, the implementation of new security requirements could be subject to negotiation with the union.

If the national security implications are not enough, how about the fact that TSA employees could actually lose benefits under this bill? If H.R. 903 becomes law, employees could lose the ability to trade shifts with one another, donate leave to their colleagues, and receive certain incentive pay. Some overtime pay would be prohibited, and current career milestone bonuses could no longer be offered.

Finally, this bill forces employees to unionize under AFGE specifically so employees wouldn't even get to choose their labor representation. This bill does not allow for an intervening union election and would require the DHS Secretary to consult with AFGE on leave benefits, additional pay, and incentives and bonuses for all TSA employees, now a 60,000-person workforce.

Everyone here, I am sure, is thankful for TSA and wants their employees to be satisfied with their working conditions. But that is a question of Congress prioritizing for that purpose, not an inflexible, forced unionization to appease the majority's base.

I urge my colleagues to heed the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel, a bipartisan group of former officials that strongly recommended against moving TSA personnel under title 5.

Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule and ask Members to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the Representative from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider a bill that would block the Biden administration's effort to establish a so-called Disinformation Governance Board.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, policing of the First Amendment protected speech has no place in this country. Yet, the Biden administration, unsatisfied with their big tech and their mainstream media allies' efforts to control criticism of their disastrous agenda, have decided to propose a government-sanctioned, taxpayer-funded ministry of truth. This not only runs contrary to the values of our Nation but is likely unconstitutional and Congress should play no part in its creation. In fact, Congress should come together to uphold the constitutional principles that the best weapon against speech we don't like is not censure; it is more speech.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko) to further speak on the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the previous question so that we can immediately consider H.R. 7690 to defund the Biden administration's recently announced Disinformation Governance Board.

Madam Speaker, the Biden administration's decision to create this board is dystopian in design and should be doomed right from the start.

Madam Speaker, the Disinformation Governance Board should be defunded for one obvious reason. It is not only Orwellian, as everyone has said, but it is clearly unconstitutional. In America, we don't allow bureaucrats and government officials to choose what speech is deemed acceptable or censor and silence viewpoints they dislike.

This fundamental principle of our law must always be vigorously defended to preserve our freedom and to keep the government in check. I used to defend this principle in the Federal courts before I was elected to Congress, and I am so encouraged to work with so many colleagues, at least on this side of the aisle here, who are also fiercely committed to this cause.

Let's put this simply: There is zero role for the Federal Government in determining what constitutes true speech. But while we have everybody's attention, let's just recap this real quickly.

This Disinformation Governance Board will be housed within the Department of Homeland Security. It was just announced by ambush, very abruptly, by Secretary Mayorkas. There is no information about its budget. There is no information provided to us about the scope of its work, no information about how it will be kept accountable. Basically, there are no details at all. Remember, this is from the same administration that wants to spy on parents who speak up at school board meetings and spy on our bank accounts. This governance board is a glaring example of mission creep, and even its name is creepy.

Here is what we do know, Madam Speaker: The board is supposed to be headed by a young woman by the name of Nina Jankowicz, who refers to herself--no kidding--as the Mary Poppins of disinformation.

Miss Poppins is herself a frequent purveyor of untruths, such as calling the New York Post's report on Hunter Biden's laptop a ``Russian influence op'' and promoting the false claim that the Steele dossier was ``Republican opposition research.'' She also appears sympathetic to the cause of censorship because she told NPR recently that she shudders--that is her word--to think about a country where free speech absolutists, again quoting her, were taking over more platforms. She recommended that law enforcement and legislatures do more to censor Americans.

To help her hit the ground running in doing what is certain to be a short stint in this job, here is what we suggest: She ought to check out the recent

falsehoods from her own administration.

Here is a hit list:

The falsehood that Secretary Mayorkas has done an ``effective job'' managing the border crisis and that it is somehow secure. He said that under oath here a couple weeks ago.

The falsehood that economic contraction in Quarter 1 of this year is actually just masking some hidden, broad economic resiliency.

The falsehood that Biden's $3.5 trillion spending bill actually cost zero dollars.

The falsehood that inflation is a high-class problem, as they told us.

The falsehood that 70 percent of our current inflation is being caused by Vladimir Putin.

You get the point.

The problem with the government appointing itself as the arbiter of truth is that it is often the government itself that often engages in spin and untruth.

Madam Speaker, if the Biden administration was itself a beacon of truth, this board would still be unconstitutional. I would tell my colleagues, if this was being proposed by a Republican administration, we would be fighting it just as vociferously.

I do find it noteworthy, however, that those who seem the most preoccupied with censoring Americans and policing disinformation are so often themselves the worst offenders at spreading it.

Again, here is the bottom line: The government has no role whatsoever in determining what constitutes truth or acceptable speech.

President Biden should dissolve this board immediately and entirely; and if he won't, Republicans will.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we may amend the rule to provide for immediate consideration of my legislation to defund the DHS Disinformation Governance Board.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding.

This Ukraine supplemental in this rule authorizes an additional $40 billion to provide defense articles and services, humanitarian aid, and financial support.

I do believe it is important that Western countries continue to support Ukraine in its fight against its barbaric aggressors, but honestly, do we not deserve a plan? Does the administration not need to come to us with where we are going with this?

This is an additional $40 billion on top of the several billion dollars that have already been spent. It is not that I object to the money. I object to not understanding how the administration is proceeding with this.

Look, it was just 10 months ago that we were all on a conference call with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security. They assured us that the government in Afghanistan was solid, and they were going to be okay. At the same time, we are all getting alerts on our phones that the government in Afghanistan is headed for the exits with all of our money.

Then it was October of this year with the clear signs that Vladimir Putin was amassing on the borders around Ukraine, and there was no solid discussion about whether or not this was important for the United States and whether or not we should do anything to counteract that.

Indeed, there were approvals for some transfer of weaponry, but it was slow to get there. Then the President made the unfortunate statement that a small incursion would perhaps be okay. The same Secretary of Defense and the same Secretary of State told us that this all would likely be over in 3 days' time, but they didn't take into account the nationality, the spirit of President Zelenskyy and his countrymen, who said: No, this is not going to happen in our country.

Look, none of us can predict the future, but truly the Biden administration really does need to justify the use of American resources as this conflict unfolds.

Is there a plan for when this supplemental funding runs out?

Will the United States defense production keep up with Ukrainian demand?

Who is keeping count on the number of Stingers and Javelin missiles that are leaving our stockpiles that should be defending our homeland? Are we depleting those so severely that we wouldn't be able to respond should we need to?

Are we providing resources that will give Ukraine an asymmetric advantage to eventually win this war? If we are not doing that, how long are we going to ask the American people to continue to fund the status quo?

Look, Russia advancing beyond Ukraine's borders into NATO territory would almost certainly also draw the United States into a war in Europe. But let me stress: That is a war in Europe. Where is the rest of Europe in this? We all want to prevent that outcome. We cannot let Vladimir Putin create this new world order in which he is the new tyrant of the world. To defeat him, we have to be united in our goals, united in the expenditure of American resources in support of those

goals, and we have to have a plan that we are confident is being followed.

It is not lost on me that this amount of money that we are asking to appropriate in an emergency fashion today is exactly one-half of the dollar amount of the weaponry that was abandoned in Afghanistan, abandoned to our enemies. Let's not find ourselves in that situation again.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the previous question and in support of the immediate consideration of legislation introduced by Leader McCarthy and House Republicans to defund and prohibit the activities of the Biden administration's Disinformation Governance Board at the Department of Homeland Security. That is right: It is called the Disinformation Governance Board.

The notion that this ill-conceived effort will improve Americans' trust in their government is fundamentally absurd. In fact, it is just the latest example of how this administration, and specifically leadership at the Department of Homeland Security, remains grossly out of touch with what issues matter most to the American people.

At a time when the border is in a state of crisis and more Americans than ever before are being fatally poisoned with fentanyl, everyone in this room and in this country would be wise to take note that this, a Disinformation Governance Board, is what your Department of Homeland Security is focused on.

Are they focused on combating the drug cartels and human traffickers that are profiting from the chaos at our southwest border? Apparently not.

Are they focused on improving our economic security and resilience against unprecedented threats from China, Russia, and others? It doesn't seem like it.

Madam Speaker, as ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, I witnessed firsthand the consistent lack of transparency demonstrated by Secretary Mayorkas and the Department of Homeland Security when faced with congressional oversight and legitimate requests for information on the department's mission.

Why on Earth would we trust the same department to now unilaterally expand their mission and decide for us, the public, what is or is not the truth? Why has the Department of Homeland Security been unable or unwilling to answer basic questions as to the functions, remit, or charter of this board when asked by Congress?

If the Biden administration was serious about making the board apolitical, as they claim they are, why have they opted to appoint known partisan operatives as its executive director and co-chairs? In fact, it is reported that the named executive director herself has promoted now-debunked claims on social media. Think about that. The person that they claim to be the executive director is now the one that has in the past herself engaged in disinformation. That is pretty ironic.

I ask you, Madam Speaker, and my colleagues across the aisle, where is the accountability for this misguided operation? With this vote, we have the opportunity to send a clear message: This administration should focus on restoring our national security, not making itself the arbiter of truth and speech. This is America, this isn't a Communist country.