mr. massie, you -- mr. massie you now rival ms. scanlon as the reader of the rules. mr. massie: i've read it twice now. >> thank you very much. you've now heard the motion. is there discussion or amendment to the rule? mr. mcgovern: i think we're trying to figure out what's going on here. does this mean that the republicans have worked out of their internal conflicts and you're all one big happy family now and we can get back to work? mr. cole: first of all you suggest we're not always one big happy family and of course we are. but i certainly think this was a positive step in the right direction. i expect we'll move in an orderly process the balance of the week. mr. mcgovern: all it took was making in order a gun bill? mr. cole: i'm not going to go into all the machinations it takes. i remember meeting in this chamber one time three times on the same rule. so these things do happen but we're here and we think we're ready to proceed. mr. mcgovern: let me just express why some of rus concerned reading some of the tweets, one from scott warren at nbc news. he retweets matt

mr. massie: mr. speaker, reasonable minds may differ about certain policies, but under the constitution we should all be on the same page about who should make law. congress should make law. think about some of the law that is have been promulgated by the administrative branch. things that should have come to congress. i got on an airplane a few years ago and they said, federal law requires that you wear a mask. you know what i thought to myself? we never voted on that law. we should have voted on whether that should be a law or not. i would have voted no. it probably wouldn't have passed. and if it had and the -- our constituents decided it was too onerous, they could appeal to us, not some bureaucrat. whether it's some other examples. the vaccine mandates that cost people their jobs. these were not laws passed by congress. these were from the executive branch. then tonight we just had two bipartisan votes to repeal executive branch rules, one on the pistol brace and one on stoves. bipartisan. what

mr. massie: i yield five minutes to my good friend from florida, mrs. cammack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for five minutes. mrs. cammack: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you to my great friend from the state of kentucky. i rise in strong support of this rule for which would provide considering of my bill, the raines act of 2023. it would address regulatory actions by requiring every new major rule or regulation that was $100 million or more to an industry proposed by federal agencies to be approved before congress before going into effect. specifically, the house and senate would be required to pass a joint resolution in order to -- in order for a major rule to be approved by congress. during his first two years in office, the presidentediaed more than -- the president added more than $400 billion in new regulatory costs to our economy. the american action forum found the new rules in his first two years required 193 million hours of compliance paperwork. 193 million hours to comply with new regulations from nameless, facel

mr. massie: -- the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. : since we are proposing children would be saved by banning plastic. has any one on the other side of the aisle that congressmen are safer that piece of plastic is baned? i don't think so. has anyone proposed that gun free zone signs would keep us safe? i don't think so. what i see surrounding me here, right outside the doors, are people with firearms protecting us. our children deserve the same respect and same serious solutions. i now yield four minutes to my good friend and league in the rules committee to speak in favor of the rule as he did in the committee, mr. chip roy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for four minutes. mr. roy: i appreciate the gentleman from kentucky. here we are engaging in the theater of the absurd yet again from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle just blatantly denying the power grab being carried out by the executive branch yet again. they don't seem to care so long as it suits their ends in terms of policy. everyb

mr. massie: that is absolutely true and once this piece of plastic is separated from the weapon, it isn't that you are within the law to keep it separate without somehow making it destroying the piece of plastic or making it impossible to re-attach it and we don't have that instruction. mr. roy: we are waiting on the united states supreme court to decide and save americans from the possibility of being felons because congress refusing to act unless we pass the congressional review act and the president were to sign it. last point i will make is this. we have had hundreds of examples of this administration overstepping its bounds, student loans, which is c.r.a., senate passed it and president vetoed and passed on a bipartisan basis in the senate and the president vetoed it. and we are trying to fix the mess the administration is making and passing rules through executive fiat and doing it notably with respect to the border, making all manners of decisions to the executive branch indirect violation of the law and federal judge just ruled last week in the northern district of texas, saying a

mr. massie: mr.hairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. massie: a government is of laws, not of men. that's what we're here to debate tonight. are we a government of laws or a government of the executive branch? are we going to allow the executive branch to write the laws? are we going to turn our constitution on its head? have we gone too far already? i would argue we have, and that is why wie need the reins act. regulations from the executive in need of scrutiny provides that every major regulation that the administration seeks to promulgate has to come to congress first, has to be passed by concurrent majorities in the house and senate and signed by the president. this is exactly what our founders prescribed. this is a bill about who makes the laws in our country, and it's about reclaiming our legislative power from the administrative state. i think it's appropriate to read from our constitution at this

mr. massie, mr. massie bushes. mr. stewart. mr. stewart votes yes. mr. fanatic? mr. gates? mr. gates votes yes. mr. dawson of louisiana? mr. johnson louisiana votes yes. mr. armstrong? mr. armstrong was yes. mr. steube votes yes. mr. bishop? mr. bishop both yes. miss candidate? miss hageman? miss hageman votes yes. miss muscat? >> no. >> this mosque about snow. mr. lynch? miss sanchez? >> no. >> miss wasserman schultz votes no. mr. connolly? >> nay. >> mr. connally for today. mr. garamendi votes no. mr. allred? miss garcia? >> name. >> miss garcia vote nay. >> mr. goldman? >> no. >> mr. goldman votes no. >> the clerk will report. >> mister chair, there are ten eyes and seven nose. >> the motion carries into this table. >> reclaiming my time, mister chairman. >> the gentleman's reclaiming her time. >> i think we made it clear that the republican majority has no interest in investigating violations of regard for meant. they just tabled a motion inflation demonstrate that. i would ask with rain my time, i think he was ready so that we can play. thank you. mister chairman? can we p

mr. massie? >> no. >> mr. stewart? >> masks to find a? >> no. >> mystified votes no. mr. gates? >> no. >> mr. gates votes no. >> mr. johnson of louisiana? >> no. >> mr. johnson of louisiana both. mr. armstrong? mr. armstrong votes no. mr. steube? no. mr. sauvignon. mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes no. it's chemical? ms. cammack votes. miss hageman? meghan votes no. it's pulaski? mr. lynch? >> yes. >> mr. lynch votes yes. miss sanchez? miss sanchez both i. miss wasserman schultz? miss wasserman schultz both i. mr. connally? mr. connally votes i. mr. garamendi? mr. already? miss garcia? >> i. >> miss garcia votes i? >> mr. goldman both i. >> mister chair, how am i recorded? >> miss plaskett, you are not recorded. >> i vote. i >> miss plaskett votes i. mrs. stewart, you are not reported. >> no. >> mr. stewart votes no. >> all members voted? clerk will report. >> mister chair, there are seven eyes and 12 knows. >> motion fails. the gentleman is recognized for the remainder of his five minutes. >> point of inquiry. >> mister chairman, point of inquiry. >> the gentlelady is recognize from

mr. massie, that's five minutes -- >> are you familiar with the lawsuit against president trump where he blocked people on twitter. >> yes. >> very briefly, as brief as you can stated, what was the issue there? >> it has been a while since i've looked at the case, so i will speak from my -- >> just broadly. >> so president trump blocked people on twitter, and of course as a private user, if he had not been president there would be no question that he had the right to do that. and so the question in the case was whether his -- taking that action while he was president, and therefore wielding governmental power, amounted to a violation of the first amendment? >> and wasn't it a particular issue of the first amendment that these were constituents who were trying to make their voices heard to the government? >> that's right, as attorney general landry, i believe mentioned before, you know, the right to petition for francis's party first amendment. >> i think it is a very important part of the first amendment. if you cannot communicate with your government, how do you get any redress? so i th

mr. hill for your riveting testimony and question. at this time i recognize myself for five minutes. miss angarella, say her name for me ma'am? >> angarella. chris thomas massies he wants me too have an event called fish with chris burnett the son how you say it. anyway, ma'am, what methods are used to prevent waste, fraud, abuse or paying these ukrainian pensions? >> thank you for the question. the pension support is being provided through the direct budget support which is going through the world bank and being done on that reimbursable basis. when the expenditures are incurred, the process is for the ministry of finance or the ukraine to send that to the world bank the world bank as the trustee who manages and supervises the funds looks at to make sure the expenditures comply with their internal procedures in their protocols and then they disburse the funds. on top of that usaid, the agency's contract with deloitte to do its own spot checks within the ministry of finance bigfoot do so with who question request with deloitte. to do spot checks and capacity building, not audits per se but capacity building including the gao doing capacity building for the in