Providing for Consideration of H.R. Rights for the Transportation Security Administration Workforce Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Federal Firefighters Fairness Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Community Services Block Grant Modernization Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, and for Other Purposes

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Jackson Lee).

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I reject the notion that America is not strong enough to stand with Ukraine as it tramples on autocracy. I reject the notion that America and the American people are not strong enough to stand with those in Ukraine who are fighting for their survival and fighting against the horrible violence of Vladimir Putin. I reject the notion that Americans are not empathetic about Mariupol and what the mayor at that time on April 12 said; he noted that 210 children were murdered by this vicious bombing in the midst of 21,000 dead.

As I traveled with Leader Hoyer, over and over again I asked the question about the children. As UNICEF said, this war is a nightmare for Ukraine's children.

This supplemental for Ukraine recognizes that. It recognizes that democracy must stand but that children must be protected with the focus on humanitarian aid, eliminating or stopping human trafficking, and recognizing that girls and women have been raped. It is time for us to speak what the American people have spoken, that they are standing with Ukraine. They want a victory for Ukraine.

This supplemental will help us stand with Ukraine. I ask my colleagues to support it and to recognize victory for Ukraine.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks. We were interrupted by a motion to adjourn a few moments ago.

Ukrainians are being slaughtered by Putin's army as we speak. Schools, churches, and hospitals have been bombarded, and yet I think 188 of our colleagues voted just to pack it up and to go home instead of acting to provide the people of Ukraine and President Zelenskyy with the military and humanitarian assistance that they need. I am very glad, and I thank the bipartisan majority that rejected that approach, and I want us to make sure we are sending a message of hope and solidarity to the people of Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, if we have isolationists in the House, I hope that they don't flatter themselves to think that Vladimir Putin is some kind of civil libertarian. Vladimir Putin is no civil libertarian for those people who have found the cause of civil liberties today. Vladimir Putin is no civil libertarian.

He is shutting down the freedom of speech and blocking his people's access to social media. He has thrown thousands of people into prison for protesting against his war in Ukraine. He just signed a new law to impose 15 years in prison on anyone who publishes or broadcasts what Russian Government censors consider false information about the invasion of Ukraine.

In fact, it is against the law in Russia now to even describe the invasion of Ukraine and the war against Ukraine as an invasion or a war. You can't describe it. Talk about Orwellian.

Why did we hear nothing from our colleagues about that?

Do they actually think that Vladimir Putin is fighting for civil liberties in his bloody and filthy invasion of Ukraine and his attempt to demolish a country?

Mr. Speaker, the American people in every public opinion poll we have seen stand strongly with the people of Ukraine. They understand illegal aggression when they see it. We know that Vladimir Putin is trying to crush the sovereignty of the people of Ukraine.

America stands with the NATO countries. America stands with the democratic governments and peoples of the world. America stands with democracy all over the world. That is who we are. That is who we are. We will never forget it, and we will never let go of it. We will not fall prey to Putin's propaganda, his disinformation, or the conspiracy theory that tries to blind us to the reality of what is happening in Ukraine today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, this past February, a Democrat staffer organization began a public campaign to unionize. A month later, the Committee on House Administration held a hearing on the topic of congressional unions.

To be clear, that hearing was not to consider the resolution that is before the House floor today, much less a mark-up. That hearing was, however, an opportunity to ask the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights--the office that administers the law governing unionization efforts in Congress--questions about how staffer unions would logistically work. The result of that hearing was more unanswered questions.

While unions play a vital role in many workplaces, including throughout my district, they just aren't feasible for Congress. OCWR's own General Counsel was unable to provide answers regarding how the unique office structures, fluctuating partisan balance, and unavoidable turnover due to elections would impact congressional unions. Yet Speaker Pelosi is bringing forward the resolution for a vote anyway.

This isn't about helping all staffers, because if it were then the majority would have given Republicans the opportunity to provide our input, including a chance to amend today's resolution. But once again, the majority is abandoning regular order to push a partisan proposal.

One of the main concerns of staffers is low pay. As a former staffer myself, I know both the opportunities and challenges of working in a Congressional office and can assure you that an office providing fair pay and maintaining a healthy work environment are the keys to recruiting and retaining top talent. And I have great news for everyone here today: you don't need to wait for the Speaker to unilaterally implement a pay order to start doing so. Every Member's office was provided a 21 percent MRA increase in March of this year.

Further, collective bargaining would not and could not address the issue of low pay--Federal law forbids this. Federal law also prohibits negotiation on healthcare and retirement benefits even if this resolution were to pass. Instead, union dues would just take more money out of staff's hard-earned paychecks without really anything to show for it.

Unionization also creates potential conflicts of interest that could impact a Member's constitutional responsibilities, including unique influence over Members' development and passage of certain legislation, and political contributions to Members using dues paid by their staff. As a reminder, under current law, congressional staff are not allowed to make political contributions to their employers.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution because it is quite simple: unions don't make sense for Congress.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source