[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 126 (Thursday, July 28, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H7265-H7273]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO 
 SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4346, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
 2022; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 1, 
                    2022, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 12, 2022

  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1289 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1289

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     4346) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other 
     purposes, with the Senate amendment to the House amendment to 
     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 Science, Space, and 
     Technology or her designee that the House concur in the 
     Senate amendment to the House amendment to 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 Science, Space, and 
     Technology or their respective designees. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its 
     adoption without intervening motion.
       Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     August 1, 2022, through September 12, 2022, the Journal of 
     the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as 
     approved.
       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 4.  Each day during the period addressed by section 2 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 5.  Each day during the period addressed by section 2 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
       Sec. 6.  Each day during the period addressed by section 2 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar or 
     legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII.
       Sec. 7.  Each day during the period addressed by section 2 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XV.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), 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

  Mr. MORELLE. Madam 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 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a 
rule, House Resolution 1289, providing for a motion by the chair of the 
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to concur in the Senate 
amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4346. 
It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science, Space, 
and Technology.
  Finally, the rule provides standard floor recess instructions for the 
August district work period from August 1 to September 12.
  Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a historic 
package of long-overdue legislative actions that will strengthen our 
economy and reignite our competitiveness on the global stage.
  Throughout our work in Congress, we have focused on fighting for and 
uplifting families, on creating opportunity and setting our community 
on a path toward a brighter future. This historic investment will 
deliver on the promise of a better tomorrow.
  It means jobs, real jobs, that will keep families together and ensure 
our children can access the American Dream.
  It means lower costs for essential, everyday items that will lessen 
the burden on families.
  It means America will strengthen its competitiveness against 
countries like China and reestablish its place as the global leader in 
innovation.
  It will reaffirm our leadership around the world by strengthening 
diplomacy, promoting human rights, and bolstering economic engagement.
  I am proud that this bill is a result of comprehensive bicameral and 
bipartisan negotiations, which I had the privilege of participating in 
as a member of the Conference Committee.
  America has always been known as the land of opportunity, creativity, 
and entrepreneurship. We are the Nation that took to the stars and 
landed a man on the Moon, the birthplace of transformational inventions 
like the internet, and home to some of the world's greatest scientists. 
Technological advancement is in our DNA, and we need to continue 
fostering its long-term growth. That is why I am particularly pleased 
this legislation includes steps to enhance regional innovation, which 
has long been one of my top priorities and opens the doors for 
limitless potential.
  Federal investment in regional innovation hubs will uplift 
communities across the country that are already leading the way in 
high-tech advancements, communities like my home of Rochester, which is 
already doing groundbreaking work in this field.
  No longer will Silicon Valley be the only area synonymous with 
innovation. With this legislation, we are making investments in 
collaboration across public, private, education, and civic sectors that 
will be game changers for communities across the country, transforming 
underutilized cities into crucibles of America's global 
competitiveness.
  Furthermore, this legislation addresses our deep concern that America 
is losing its competitive edge in semiconductor manufacturing, a clear 
economic and national security concern. Over the past few years, China 
has invested more than $150 billion to build their domestic chip 
manufacturing capacity, while we have invested nothing. We have fallen 
behind. But not anymore.
  The CHIPS and Science Act will bolster our domestic supply of 
semiconductors, putting us back on pace to match China while reducing 
our reliance on foreign supply chains and lowering costs for everyday 
families.
  This legislation harnesses the spirit of ingenuity that has always 
guided America and turns the page on a new chapter in our history, one 
that creates economic opportunity for communities across the country 
and ensures our Nation is back on track as the global leader we have 
always been.
  I extend a heartfelt thank-you to all of my colleagues who have 
helped make this legislation a reality. It has been an honor to 
collaborate with so many leaders, particularly the Honorable Chairwoman 
Johnson of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee on regional 
innovation provisions.
  As a member of the USICA-COMPETES conference process, I encountered a 
strong commitment from fellow conferees and staff to ensure this final 
package reflects the needs of the entire country and provides a 
meaningful path forward for innovation and growth.

[[Page H7266]]

  No legislation is perfect, but this package sends a clear message to 
the world that when it comes to our global competitiveness, we will set 
aside our differences and get the job done.
  Today, we are taking decisive action to ensure our leadership remains 
strong, our economy remains robust, and our future remains bright.
  Yesterday afternoon, this legislation received broad bipartisan 
support on the Senate floor, with 17 Republican Senators voting for 
final passage. I hope we see similar outcomes when it comes to the 
House floor.
  I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
proudly supporting this important legislation. I look forward to seeing 
it passed in short order.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

  Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Morelle), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of 
the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. After conference negotiations failed 
on a package to counter the malign actions of China, the Senate drafted 
this legislation to send billions of taxpayer dollars in the form of 
subsidies and tax credits to a single industry.
  Democrats' reckless spending policies led to this record-high 
inflation that is crushing American families and small business. The 
government should not be spending hundreds of billions of dollars to 
provide subsidies benefiting one industry.
  This legislation comes to the House just 1 day after Senate Democrats 
announced a deal to tax American manufacturers and energy producers, 
which will increase the cost to American families and worsen our supply 
chain crisis.
  They also want to hire 87,000 new IRS agents, and let's be honest 
about this. Those agents will do nothing more than target American 
families and small businesses.
  They also want to spend $369 billion on their radical, far-left, 
Green New Deal agenda. There can be no doubt that this latest iteration 
of Biden's build back broke agenda will cause inflation to skyrocket 
even further.
  The Biden administration is deflecting on our Nation's recession. 
They are classifying Biden's economic crisis as a ``transition'' to 
slower growth. While they are doubling down on their disastrous 
policies, they are devastating everyday Americans.
  It is time my colleagues across the aisle abandon their socialist 
pipe dream and actually work with Republicans to get our economy back 
on track.
  Madam Speaker, I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, let me just reflect on what my good friend and 
colleague on the Rules Committee said about a single industry. It is 
hard to imagine any industry in the United States--in the world, in 
fact--that doesn't utilize semiconductor chips. It is in everything. 
Chips run everything.
  Whether it is your cell phone, your laptop, or your automobile, it 
really doesn't matter. Children's toys have chips in them. The fact is, 
we have lost our competitive edge. That is what this is all about. This 
affects industry in the United States.
  Take, for example, General Motors announcing they have 95,000 
automobiles awaiting chips. Do you want to increase the supply of goods 
to people and help bring down inflation? This is about increasing the 
supply of goods all over the United States in every single industry.
  In my home in Rochester, New York, where we specialize in optics, 
centuries of optics and photonic integrated circuits, everything is 
involved with chips. We can no longer wait.
  By the way, in addition to our economic security, our national 
security depends on this. If you want to not only compete with China 
economically but from a national security and defense perspective, we 
must do this.
  This isn't about a single industry; it is about every industry.
  It is like saying water is used to drink; water is in everything. We 
could not be clearer about this. This is about our competitiveness on 
every level, and it is about the future.
  It is about our children. It is about our grandchildren. It is about 
what kind of country we want to have and what kind of economy we want 
to have. Are we going to be in a position to defend the United States' 
democracy and our interests around the world?
  I appreciate my friend's comments, but I have to say it would be 
narrow-minded to look at this and simply say it affects the 
semiconductor industry only. It affects everything.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Ross), my very good friend and another distinguished 
member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the CHIPS and 
Science Act. Our Nation has long been a global leader in science and 
technology, but we cannot afford to take that position for granted.
  Our global standing rests not just on the ingenuity of our people but 
also on our government's bipartisan commitment to supporting 
innovation.
  At this moment of unprecedented international competition, we 
urgently need an unprecedented investment in the groundbreaking 
research that powers America's economic growth. That is why the CHIPS 
and Science Act is so timely and so important.
  In addition to bolstering domestic production of semiconductors, this 
landmark legislation will authorize more than $81 billion for the 
National Science Foundation.
  Crucially, the bill also funds research that will yield the cutting-
edge clean energy technologies of tomorrow, cutting carbon emissions 
and helping combat global climate change.
  Madam Speaker, my district includes much of the Research Triangle, 
our Nation's largest research park, which is home to hundreds of 
companies breaking new ground in medicine, energy, telecommunications, 
and more.
  We are also proud of our leading research universities like N.C. 
State University, HBCUs like Shaw and Saint Augustine's, and our 
State's largest community college, Wake Tech, and we have a women's 
college specializing in STEM, Meredith College.
  Our investments in public-private partnerships afforded by the CHIPS 
and Science Act will provide these North Carolina-based companies and 
educational institutions with unprecedented funding and research 
support.
  Companies in my district, particularly startups, have struggled to 
cope with the consequences of the global semiconductor shortage. To 
meet that need, this bill includes more than $50 billion in chips 
funding, which will mitigate current semiconductor supply chain 
concerns, incentivize domestic production, and prevent another chips 
crisis in the future.
  I am also pleased that this package includes several bipartisan bills 
I led with members of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, 
including the Energizing Technology Transfer Act, a version of the NSF 
Technology Research Institutes Act, and the National Science and 
Technology Strategy Act.
  These bills will help facilitate the commercial application of clean 
energy technologies by universities and private companies, the 
development of a national science and technology strategy, and 
investment in research and traineeship programs for graduate students.
  The CHIPS and Science Act embodies the investment needed to empower 
innovation in North Carolina's Second District and across the United 
States. I support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I don't disagree that these chips are important to the 
U.S. economy and many manufacturers. What I take issue with is the fact 
that we are putting even more money, billions of dollars, into an 
economy that is already suffering from record-high inflation.
  It is unsettled whether this will even make a difference. It can be 
argued that chips were already going to come back anyhow, and it is not 
just me saying it. I have an article right here from

[[Page H7267]]

The Economist, not exactly a rightwing publication. It was published on 
10 July of this year. ``When the chips are way down: After a 
turbocharged boom, are chipmakers in for a supersize bust?'' That is 
the headline.
  It goes on, saying: ``Surging supply and softening demand are 
bringing the pandemic's superstar industry back to Earth.''
  My question is: If this industry is already coming back, if it is 
already as important as we think it is, why do we need to inject 
billions of dollars into the economy that is just going to further the 
economic crisis we are already in?
  I know my colleague from North Carolina was talking about how to spur 
research and development. I can tell you how to do it: You cut taxes. 
You cut regulations.
  If you look at the TCJA, this was a huge win for U.S. research and 
investment: 25 percent higher than in the years prior, reaching an all-
time high in 2019 of $584 billion and 3 percent of GDP.
  If you want to stimulate the economy, you can do it by reducing taxes 
and reducing regulation, not by picking winners and losers.
  To talk more about this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from the great State of Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend and fellow 
Rules Committee member.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, this morning we are here to talk about 
the rule for the CHIPS Act to provide $76 billion for semiconductor 
manufacturing and authorizing $200 billion over 10 years for research 
and innovation programs.
  Now, according to a long-term budget outlook released by the 
Congressional Budget Office just yesterday, our national debt sits at 
$24 trillion and will rise to $138 trillion over the next three 
decades. That is equivalent to $370,000 for every man, woman, and child 
in the United States. Our mandatory spending over the same period would 
grow from just over $4 trillion per year to over $18 trillion per year. 
The CHIPS Act includes billions in new mandatory spending and billions 
more that is authorized for appropriation.
  We are experiencing the highest inflation in 40 years with multiple 
interest rate hikes. It has been widely reported that the Federal 
Reserve hiked interest rates again and with the statement that they 
have no choice but to try to slow the economy in order to tame this 
inflationary pressure.
  And then here is the ironic part of all that, the CHIPS bill also is 
the key that unlocks the door for getting the long-stalled Build Back 
Better Act going over in the United States Senate.
  And what does that do?
  It provides billions of additional dollars of stimulus spending in 
the economy. But the Federal Reserve said they have no choice but to 
slow the economy.
  So which is it? Is it a stimulant or a depressant?
  As a medical professional, I will tell you, if you combine those two 
activities, you are going to end up with something that is just goofy. 
But then on top of that, there are tax increases at a time of 
recession.
  Even the Obama administration in 2009 and 2010 said, we can't undo 
the Bush tax cuts, we have got to continue the Bush tax cuts that they 
had long hoped to undo because they could not raise taxes during a 
recession. And yet now we have the other body poised, basically, with 
their Green New Deal to tax America back into the stone age.
  I agree that semiconductors are a critical component of likely 
everything we use, but we cannot put our fiscal future in further 
jeopardy, especially when this funding will benefit one specific 
industry. I am also concerned that the time required to ramp up the 
semiconductor production will be late in trying to alleviate current 
supply chain constraints. As my friend from Pennsylvania just pointed 
out, when this industry self-corrects, the likelihood is there will be 
too many.
  Rather than provide funding to large corporations, many of whom are 
already undertaking significant development efforts, let's incentivize 
competitiveness in all industries and continue to promote research and 
development and not raise taxes during a recession.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised by the conversation here, it 
is as though we don't recognize the importance of semiconductors and 
the entire semiconductor supply chain to literally every activity we 
are involved in. Whether transportation, as I have already mentioned, 
or communications or medical devices or our satellite technology, 
literally every single thing we do depends on it.
  The notion that we should somehow stand pat and allow other nations 
to invest and to build their supply chains to me is hard to accept, 
hard to understand, hard to process. If we do nothing over the next 
decade, China will be producing about 40 percent of semiconductor chips 
worldwide, the United States about 6 percent. If we want to put our 
reliance in the hands of foreign suppliers and foreign supply chains, I 
guess we can do nothing. But we need to invest, and that is why this 
bill is critical. That is why I suspect it received the support of 17 
Republican Senators on the Senate floor yesterday. This is critical.
  As I said earlier, China is investing $150 billion in their 
semiconductor supply chain, and this is not just chips; it is chips, it 
is substrates, it is packaging, it is assembly. It is the whole thing. 
Anytime there is a gap in a supply chain, we rely on those who fill 
that gap for us.
  Do we want to be in a position where our economic fortunes are 
dependent on foreign competitors for a critical part of our supply 
chain?
  Do we want to put our national security in jeopardy because those 
things which we need to be safe and secure are dependent upon foreign 
supply chains?
  I don't think so. I don't think that is what the American public 
wants. And, frankly, I am glad to have this debate because I think it 
shows a divide. I think it shows a contrast between what we want to do 
to invest in not only this generation but next generations.
  There are also a couple of other observations I will make. One is 
about just market forces and just allowing things to happen according 
to the market. While working on this bill--I talked a lot earlier, and 
I will continue to talk about regional innovation, but I also want to 
talk about Federal investment, two points.
  The first I would make is: R&D investment by the United States 
Government has fallen to 0.61 percent of U.S. GDP. That is the lowest 
mark since the 1950s. At one point we were investing nearly 2 percent 
of GDP in research and development.
  What came out of things like our investments in the space program are 
material sciences and advances, advances in telecommunications, 
advances in weather satellites, advances in so many different things, 
even fuel cell development. All those things came out of an R&D 
investment which we haven't kept pace with.
  We talk about our competitiveness with China. This is vital to our 
national interest. I can't think of many things that are more vital to 
our national interest over the next several decades.
  When you look at where we are making those investments, right now, if 
you are privileged to live in one of the five innovation hubs--such as 
Boston; the Silicon Valley; in Seattle, Washington; in Austin, Texas--
those areas account for about 90 percent of private investment, and 
venture capitalists will spend in those areas.

  But what about the rest of the country?
  I live in a place, Rochester, New York, which is home to the 
Rochester Institute of Technology and the University of Rochester, both 
great research facilities. There was a book recently written, ``Jump-
Starting America'' by Simon Johnson and Jonathan Gruber, two MIT 
economists. They rated 130 different communities across the country 
that are falling behind, despite the fact that they have great 
innovation ecosystems, but they lack investment.
  The public investment which we are talking about making through our 
regional innovation hubs will drive private investment because private 
investment will partner with the investments being made by the U.S. 
Government in our innovation, in our entrepreneurship, in advancing our 
interests for the long term.
  We have to do this. This isn't something that we could decide to wait 
a

[[Page H7268]]

year or two years. This is an investment we must make now. We have 
fallen behind, and we can no longer afford to fall further behind.
  Our economic interests, our national security interests are 
intimately tied together, and that is why this legislation is so vital, 
and that is why I hope we will have strong bipartisan support when the 
bill comes to the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, just a point of clarification. This is just an 
authorization. We will still wait a year anyhow to appropriate these 
funds, so trying to act like we have a gun to our head right now and 
this is a do-or-die moment is completely illusory. Again, this is just 
an authorization.
  Additionally, I agree with my friend from New York on two points. 
Number one, we have got to be competitive with China.
  Number two, the semiconductor chips are important for the economy.
  But the way to compete with China is not to emulate the policies of a 
Communist police state. The way to compete with China is to unleash the 
American economy, to get back to our Western roots of free-market 
capitalism. If we want to bring more businesses onshore, if we want to 
fix our supply chain crisis, we can start by reducing the burdensome 
regulations that are crippling American businesses. We can reduce our 
income tax and our corporate income tax to make us more competitive 
globally, and we can do something to make sure we have cheap, reliable, 
abundant energy resources, such as exploiting our natural gas reserves 
and perhaps investing in nuclear power.
  But to sit here and say that we are going to compete with China by 
doing what the Chinese do and having some bureaucratic monster in D.C. 
pick winners and losers for a particular industry is not a winning 
proposition.
  What will beat China and keep us competitive with China is getting 
back to what made this country great in the first place, and again that 
is free-market capitalism.
  Let's talk about inflation because, again, this is going to put 
billions of dollars into the economy, which will make this situation 
worse. Americans are facing the highest inflation in over 40 years. 
This is literally the worst inflation in my lifetime. This morning we 
learned that GDP has decreased for a second quarter in a row.
  Yet, the Treasury Secretary wants to downplay Biden's economic crisis 
by redefining recession, which for decades recession has been defined 
as two quarters of negative economic growth. Instead, Secretary Yellen 
and the leftists across the aisle want to play Orwellian and change the 
definition to ``a period of transition.'' Even the extreme liberal 
think tank, The Brookings Institution, acknowledged we are in a 
recession, but it seems, again, my colleagues across the aisle have 
forgotten basic economics.
  House Republicans want to set the record straight. That is why if we 
defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to 
the rule to immediately consider House Resolution 1290, a resolution 
affirming the longstanding definition of a recession.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment into the Record along with any extraneous materials 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Lee of Nevada). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), my good friend and the sponsor of this 
resolution, to explain the amendment.
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Madam Speaker, I have got to tell you, being on the 
Ways and Means Committee and never actually engaging in some of your 
Rules debate, you guys are really polite with each other.
  But here's a simple question: What are the two times in life you 
think you know everything?
  When you turn 13 years old and the day after you get elected to 
Congress.
  I am going to argue the arrogance of this place right now doing a 
piece of legislation like this. Why is this bill, the underlying bill, 
the underlying rule here so dangerous? And why this resolution actually 
fits this.
  Basically, the underlying bill is industrial policy. Let's face it, 
some of the scoring is saying this is $400 billion, and it is the 
politicization functionally of a category of incredibly important 
industry, grants that you saw the President a couple days ago talk 
about--now you are going to have to come in front of me.
  Do you understand how dangerous that is for an economy? That 
arrogance of the political class thinking you understand what the next 
disruption is. The controlling of intellect, the controlling of taking 
risk.
  If you actually gave a darn about American competitiveness, of where 
chips--and who knows, quantum, and all the other possibilities of data 
management, data movement, of processing--are going, you would fix the 
Tax Code, you would fix the regulatory code.
  If you care about China, deal with the made-in-America tax, the fact 
that they refund the VAT; and when we export, they put the VAT back on, 
and it makes us not competitive.
  You also now have to deal with the reality, when The Economist is 
writing articles that we are heading toward a glut of chips. Look, I am 
from Arizona. On the side of my district, I have a $16 billion 
investment from Taiwan Semiconductor. Down the street I have Intel, I 
think they are spending $18 billion. It is coming.
  But the brain trust around here is we are going to do industrial 
policy. We are going to control the money. It will be great for fund-
raising. And the concept, once again, is we have politicized 
everything. Think of now the debate we have had the last couple days, 
is two quarters of negative GDP, well, that is not a recession. Okay, 
technically it might not be because the definition of recession now is 
a committee that is politicized.
  Could we at least have some benchmarks here in Congress, here in 
Washington that we know what the rules are? I don't mean your type of 
rules. I mean the rules for society, the rules for tax policy, the 
rules for how we allocate capital, because you are offering right now 
functionally $400 billion of subsidies, controls, management, and 
industrial policy, government.
  Why don't you just nationalize the chip industry because you are 
pretty much heading that direction.
  This is a simple amendment. In some ways, it is actually very 
symbolic of we can't even agree anymore on what a recession is.
  Okay, fine. Let's just make it a rule instead of making it a 
committee of individuals that get to express their opinion and their 
feelings.
  I would love to actually offer something more complex. Maybe we 
should go back to the old misery index debates of how many people can't 
afford living anymore. You do realize the inflation from just the last 
12 months, my constituents--I represent the highest inflation in the 
Nation--get to work about 6 weeks without compensation. The purchasing 
power of their lives has crashed so much, they now work a month-and-a-
half for free.

                              {time}  1130

  These are the brilliant policies this place has brought. It is time 
we actually start to set some benchmarks on what the rules are.
  Simple amendment. Just saying, hey, we will call it a recession when 
we have two consecutive quarters, and we can stop the politicization of 
everything here in Washington.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I will admit that I am a little mystified about what I am hearing 
here, so let me try to unpack a lot of what I just heard.
  In the first instance, a number of my colleagues have repeatedly 
suggested that regular order in the House is for the authorization of 
legislation and then appropriators identify how much money can be spent 
on those things authorized under law.
  That is exactly what we are doing here today. We are authorizing much 
under the CHIPS legislation. That is the way we do regular order. It is 
identifying those things that we authorize

[[Page H7269]]

and then identifying the dollars necessary to meet that authorization.
  But let me just read from the actual report on the bill: Division A, 
CHIPS Act of 2022, Section 101, Short Title: This Act may be cited as 
the CHIPS Act of 2022. Section 102, Creating Helpful Incentives to 
Produce Semiconductors for America Fund, the CHIPS fund. In order to 
support the rapid implementation of the semiconductor provisions 
included in the fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, 
the NDAA, this division would provide $52.7 billion in emergency 
supplemental appropriations.
  This bill has nearly $53 billion included in it, $50 billion 
allocated over 5 years for the CHIPS for America Fund.
  I could go on and list it, but this is exactly what we are talking 
about: Authorization to move forward over the next several years to 
strengthen American competitiveness in the world.
  By the way, it is not just all of the industries I talked about. Try 
to order a refrigerator without a chip in it or a microwave oven or a 
dishwasher or a TV or a laptop or a cell phone or--I could go on and on 
all day. There isn't a consumer device, there is not an electronic 
device--even farm equipment. Everything we use has chips in it. We are 
falling behind the Chinese and others, and we are relying on foreign 
investment and foreign supply chain.
  I can't imagine something more American than passing this bill. This 
is vital to our national interest. This is one of the most vital things 
we will do.
  So we are following in the way that we are supposed to: 
authorization, appropriation. But there are emergency appropriations of 
over $50 billion to move not just one industry forward, but to move all 
industries forward, to move our economic and our national security 
interests forward together.
  By the way, just so if people tune in and wonder, What is this all 
about? Let me just say all the things I just mentioned, $50 billion in 
emergency appropriations, the desire and the need and the will of the 
American people, as represented by the Senate and the House, to move 
forward on economic and national security interests.
  We should put that all aside, my friends are suggesting, and don't do 
any of that today. So we are not going to authorize; we are not going 
to spend money; we are not going to move ourselves forward from an 
economic security and a national security perspective.
  This is what they would like us to do instead, and I am reading from 
their bill, the thing they just said we should do instead of doing all 
the things I just mentioned: resolve that it is the sense of the House 
of Representatives that two consecutive quarters of negative growth in 
gross domestic product constitutes a recession. That is what they would 
like to do.
  We would like to move America forward. We would like to build a 
supply chain that works for all Americans. We want to make sure our 
economy is strong now and in the future. We want to make sure our 
national defense is strong, that the American public is protected, that 
democracy is protected across the world. And that is what we are doing. 
That is what our partners in the Senate are doing. They want to define 
what a recession is. That is their plan.
  I would ask America: Should we stop what we are doing? Should we put 
an end to our desire to make sure we are competitive on the world 
stage? Should we not protect America's economic interests? Should we 
not protect America's national security interests? And we should define 
in the House of Representatives what a recession is? That is what we 
want to do? That is their plan?
  I think most Americans watching would be scratching their heads. I 
think they would wonder why is it people don't want to make us 
competitive here in the House of Representatives. Well, we do. The 
majority--and I suspect a fair number of their colleagues are going to 
vote for this, too, because they know it is good for America, and they 
know it is good for the future, for not only my generation, but my 
children's generation, my grandchildren's generation, and generations 
to come.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just to clarify, this is not an either/or choice here. If we defeat 
the previous question, we can consider the resolution of my good friend 
from Arizona to actually define recession, and then we can take up the 
underlying bill. Again, this is a false choice saying it is one or the 
other. We can do both.
  People may ask, Why is it necessary to define recession? It is 
necessary because the party across the aisle are trying to redefine 
recession. But I shouldn't be surprised. Because remember, this is the 
same party that tried to tell us that women are now known as birthing 
people. It is the party that all during the summer of 2020 told us that 
violent rioting and looting was mostly peaceful protesting. Now they 
are trying to tell us that a recession, which has been defined 
for decades as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, that 
that is now called a transitionary period.

  So it is an absolute necessity that we define recession so that we 
have clarity in language.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Rodney Davis), my good friend and the ranking member on the Committee 
on House Administration.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend 
Mr. Reschenthaler from Pennsylvania for yielding. He is right that it 
is disinformation. It is disinformation. We should defeat the previous 
question so that we can go back to what defined a recession and what 
has defined a recession for decades.
  Democrats have to stop playing games, playing games with 
misinformation and disinformation. Now, we have got another game being 
played with this rule today.
  This is a rule, as my good friend from New York talked about, that is 
going to allow a bill to come to the floor that has some very good 
bipartisan provisions. I think many Republicans would support a lot of 
the provisions in this CHIPS bill.
  The problem is, why in the world does the majority have to continue 
to play games instead of actually working with us and doing anything in 
a bipartisan manner?
  Tucked into this rule is a provision that will completely eviscerate 
the intent of a rule that was negotiated in a bipartisan way by 
Republicans and Democrats that if a Member of Congress was able to 
secure 290 cosponsors on a bill, he or she would have then been given 
the right, as a Member of this institution, to have that bill debated 
and voted on, on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  I remember Democrats and Republicans standing up and touting this 
provision, that this is going to bring power back to every Member of 
Congress. Until today--until today when the Rules Committee decides to 
turn this provision off, to deny the 294 cosponsors of the Social 
Security Fairness Act that is in place because all 294 of us want 
fairness for our retired teachers, our retired firefighters, and our 
retired police officers. They are turning off this rule for one reason 
and one reason only, to not have a vote on the floor like they promised 
us they would do.
  We followed their rules. And what did Democrats do? They changed the 
rules in the process.
  Do you want Republicans to vote for legislation in a bipartisan way 
when you play games like this? Well, don't be surprised when there are 
a lot of noes popping up on the board today for a piece of legislation 
that I think a lot of Republicans would normally support.
  It is games like this that hurt the retirees the most. Democrats for 
decades have promised retired teachers, firefighters, police officers, 
and other public employees--they promised those individuals that they 
would do something to fix these egregious provisions, the Government 
Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision in the Social 
Security Code.
  This is their shot--this is your shot, Madam Speaker, to get the 
majority----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, this is the majority's

[[Page H7270]]

shot to live up to the promises the Democrats have made for decades to 
those who have been begging for a solution. All you have got to do is 
take this rule back, remove this turn-off provision, allow the 
consensus calendar to continue as it was intended to continue when this 
rule change was negotiated.
  If I was a bipartisan member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, I would 
be coming to the floor screaming. What I want to do is I want every 
single cosponsor of H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act, to 
consider--all 293 others besides me--I want you to consider voting 
against this rule. Because if they can turn this off and they can 
change the rules midgame, then why celebrate a bipartisan success story 
that was put in place in 2019? Stop playing politics.
  Madam Speaker, Members of the majority, quit playing games, vote down 
this rule, and change this provision.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I do worry sometimes that the public sometimes doesn't understand 
what is being said here. It is curious that my distinguished friend, 
the gentleman from Illinois, would scream about the consensus calendar.
  Let me just be clear, folks back home. We created the consensus 
calendar. It didn't exist in the past. The Democrats created it to try 
to create more bipartisanship. What we are doing here is simply 
pausing, as we have done on both sides when both sides were in the 
majority--pausing during the August district work period.
  This is something that I just find fascinating. We didn't even have a 
consensus calendar when Republicans were in charge. We are pausing it 
for the next 6 weeks. I appreciate the distinguished gentleman, but I 
want to assure the American public that what they should be focused on 
is the work we should be doing today, the work that is actually getting 
done to strengthen our resolve around the world, to strengthen our 
economic position, to build jobs for families across America, to aid 
consumer electronics and business electronics, and all the things that 
we want to do around quantum computing and quantum communications, and 
taking American ingenuity, American innovation, which has been the 
hallmark of our growth as a Nation for two centuries, and doubling down 
and saying we are not going to stand aside and let others take a 
leadership position in this world.
  America is going to stand up. We are going to do what we have always 
done. We are going to invest in smart people; we are going to build our 
economic future; and we are going to build our national security 
future. It starts here today. That is what we should keep our eyes on.
  Everyone should pay attention. This is what we are doing. I am 
expecting and hoping that we are going to have a substantially 
bipartisan vote on this bill when it comes to the floor as it did in 
the Senate just yesterday.

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) for the purpose of a rebuttal.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I have the utmost 
respect for my friend and colleague from New York, but he is dead wrong 
in the information and advice that he got from the Committee on Rules.
  The sheer fact that this so-called turn-off provision is nonchalantly 
just used as--well, it wasn't part of the consensus process, but let's 
pound our chest and say we created the consensus calendar process to 
begin with, so we are great. Well, when you disrupt the consensus 
process, you are not great. You are actually changing the rules 
midgame.
  Really, here is the kicker: There is talk about us having to come 
back to do a few votes while we are in the midst of August. The way 
this rule is written, those days won't even count toward the consensus 
calendar.
  Rest assured, there is no other reason that the Democrats and the 
majority on the Committee on Rules are doing this than to stop the 
progress of actually addressing the Social Security Fairness Act.
  We have 294 cosponsors. We played by the rules. Democrats changed the 
rules midgame. And you trust this majority to actually put a bill 
together that is going to stop China from dominating the chip 
production industry in the globe when they play games like this?
  That is what the American people are sick and tired of. That is why 
that is an outgoing majority. That is why we are going to have a new 
majority. It is games like this that have to stop being played when you 
talk about bipartisanship, but you don't actually govern in a 
bipartisan way.

                              {time}  1145

  Today is another shining example of that. Again, 294 cosponsors. We 
play by your rules, we play by the majority's provisions, and you 
change the rules midgame. I certainly hope our umpires tonight at the 
Congressional Baseball Game are better at actually codifying the rules 
that exist.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, while I have just a moment, I want to 
share with those who tuned in some comments about the underlying bill 
for this rule. ``This funding will help kick-start domestic production 
of these semiconductors in a way that will prevent a vulnerability of 
our supply chain . . .'' ``One other benefit to this bill is that this 
bill could create roughly 185,000 jobs every year as these new 
facilities are constructed.'' That was said by John Cornyn from Texas 
yesterday on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  From Roy Blunt, a Republican Senator from Missouri said: ``This bill 
includes targeted investments in technological development and 
manufacturing that will strengthen our position in a global economy. 
The bill expands the successful Manufacturing U.S.A. program by 
creating new innovation hubs and helps ensure we have the right Federal 
policy in place to support the research and development of emerging 
technologies. I was proud to be a part of this effort, and I urge our 
House colleagues to get this bill to the President's desk.''
  Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia said this: 
``America can never be replaced as the global economic and innovation 
leader. Winning the future means making the necessary investments to 
address issues like the microchip shortage, prepare the next generation 
of workers in science and technology fields, and keep up with our 
competitors, including China. This legislation not only bets on 
American ingenuity, but it also authorizes funding that can be utilized 
by our institutions of higher education . . .''
  How about Todd Young, a Republican from Indiana: ``It's time to go on 
the offensive, and that is exactly what this legislation, which has 
gone by many names--from the Endless Frontier Act to the U.S. 
Innovation and Competition Act to CHIPS-Plus--will do . . .'' ``This 
bill will unleash private sector innovation while significantly 
boosting Federal national security investments. It's been a long 
journey to get to this point, but history will show that by passing 
this bill, we are confronting the challenges of today and building a 
prosperous and secure tomorrow for all Americans.''
  Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio: ``Today's passage of the CHIPS 
Act is critical in the effort to bring semiconductor manufacturing back 
to the United States, protect our national security, and create 
thousands of high-paying jobs in Ohio. I was proud to help lead efforts 
in the Senate to pass this legislation and ensure that Intel's planned 
semiconductor plant in central Ohio remains on track and reaches its 
full potential. I urge the House to act quick on this bipartisan 
legislation so the President can sign it into law, and I look forward 
to attending the groundbreaking for this transformational project in 
the coming months.''
  The reviews keep coming, and they are all positive. We have got to 
move this today in the House. We have got to get it to the President's 
desk. We have not a moment to lose in the race for America's future and 
to make sure that we are secure for generations to come.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield 
myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, my good friend from New York was talking about jobs 
and the promise of more jobs with this act. We have heard this before. 
The American Rescue Plan. We sat here and debated that, and we were 
told by the

[[Page H7271]]

leftists across the aisle that this was going to create 4 million new 
jobs. You know what didn't happen? We didn't create 4 million new jobs. 
And that is not me saying that. That is a study from the American 
Enterprise Institute, which found that the American Rescue Plan failed 
to create any of the 4 million new jobs that Big Government Democrats 
had promised.
  While we are talking about stats and figures, let's put a real cost 
to the inflation and the pain that is being inflicted on the American 
people by injecting billions of dollars into the economy. So let's put 
real numbers on it. Inflation will cost the average American household 
more than $6,000 a year. That is so high that if you have had a 
constant salary for the last year, you have essentially worked for more 
than a month without pay.
  So, let me ask this: If you are sitting here watching at home, could 
you take one paycheck from this year, one paycheck, and just throw it 
out the window? Probably not.
  Now, if you are part of the coastal elite and the woke, yuppie, Zoom 
class that is the base of the Democratic Party, you might be able to 
afford that. You might just go to two Pilates classes a week instead of 
four. You may not take that second trip to Europe. You may scale back 
at Whole Foods. You have that luxury if you are part of the woke 
Democratic base. But if you are somebody in Pittsburgh who is a retired 
steel worker that is on a fixed income, this hurts you. You don't have 
that disposable income. If you are a natural gas driller in Oklahoma 
that has to drive to a drill site every day to actually produce 
something, you have to fill your tank with gas. You don't have the 
option to sit at home and pretend you are working on Zoom. If you are a 
woman that has to drive, for example, to a diner to work a shift, you 
don't have the luxury of not doing that. You have to bear the burden of 
the inflation; again, the inflation that is being caused by the radical 
left policies of the Democratic Party.
  Yet, despite this real economic pain, Democrats continue to want to 
put billions of dollars in the economy, billions in corporate handouts. 
They want to undo Republican tax cuts and policies that actually led to 
the lowest unemployment rates we have had in 50 years.
  So, rather than forcing Americans to pay for their radical socialist 
agenda, my colleagues across the aisle should use the time to work with 
Republicans on policies that American families will benefit from and 
allow American companies to actually compete in a global economy. And 
we can do that all simply by reducing regulation and reducing taxation. 
And how about we unleash our domestic energy supply?

  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and 
``no'' on the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I thank my great friend and colleague for the opportunity to engage 
in a thoughtful conversation about issues where we may agree and we may 
disagree, but I always appreciate him.
  I would just note, though, that all the conversations I have had over 
the last many, many months about American competitiveness has largely 
been with my chamber of commerce, with business leaders, CEOs of 
companies who are desperate that we continue to move forward in 
repairing the challenges of our microelectronic supply chain. I haven't 
heard from any Socialists about it. They may have different 
communication with people, but I have heard from the business 
community; I have heard from economic drivers; I have heard from 
innovators; I have heard from entrepreneurs about the need to make this 
go.
  Madam Speaker, I want to, first of all, thank my colleagues who have 
spoken in support of the rule. I want to thank those who have put this 
bill before us. Support for this rule showcases a commitment to 
American leadership in research, manufacturing, and innovation for 
decades to come. It showcases a commitment to lowering costs for 
families, creating job opportunities, and building long-term economic 
stability that will uplift families across this country. It showcases a 
commitment to investing in regional innovation and leveraging the 
significant untapped potential that so many communities hold, including 
my own in Rochester, New York.
  We can't afford to wait any longer to make these critical 
investments. We must join our colleagues in the Senate and show the 
American people we are committed to taking on China and reestablishing 
our place on the global stage as a force to be reckoned with.
  This is a pivotal moment in our Nation's history. We must meet it 
head-on and deliver investments that will ensure every family in every 
community has the opportunity to achieve the American Dream. This 
legislation will do just that.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler 
is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 1289

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 1290) expressing the sense of the House 
     of Representatives that two consecutive quarters of negative 
     growth in gross domestic product, as reported by the Bureau 
     of Economic Analysis, constitutes a recession. The resolution 
     shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question except one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Oversight and Reform. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX 
     shall not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 
     1290.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 208, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 402]

                               YEAS--218

     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
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     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
     McEachin
     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
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury

[[Page H7272]]


     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--208

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Conway
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     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
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     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
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     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
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Hartzler
     Hollingsworth
     Kinzinger
     Schakowsky

                              {time}  1241

  Mr. BOST, Mrs. FLORES, and Mr. GARCIA of California changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


    members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

     Babin (Weber (TX))
     Bass (Neguse)
     Blumenauer (Beyer)
     Bourdeaux (Correa)
     Boyle, Brendan F. (Neguse)
     Brown (MD) (Trone)
     Bush (Bowman)
     Carter (LA) (Neguse)
     Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))
     Cherfilus-McCormick (Neguse)
     Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
     DeSaulnier (Beyer)
     Evans (Beyer)
     Gosar (Gaetz)
     Green (TN) (Fleischmann)
     Guthrie (Barr)
     Huffman (Neguse)
     Jones (Beyer)
     Joyce (PA) (Keller)
     Kahele (Correa)
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     Levin (MI) (Correa)
     McBath (Bishop (GA))
     McNerney (Pallone)
     Meeks (Velazquez)
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Rice (SC) (Meijer)
     Ruppersberger (Trone)
     Rush (Bishop (GA))
     Sires (Pallone)
     Stevens (Kuster)
     Stewart (Crawford)
     Taylor (Weber (TX))
     Thompson (CA) (Beyer)
     Vargas (Correa)
     Walorski (Banks)
     Williams (GA) (Neguse)
     Wilson (SC) (Norman)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mrvan). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 208, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 403]

                               YEAS--216

     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
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     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)
     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
     McEachin
     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
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     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--208

     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Conway
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     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
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     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
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Aderholt
     Curtis
     Frankel, Lois
     Hartzler
     Khanna
     Kinzinger

[[Page H7273]]


  


                              {time}  1253

  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 for:
  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 403.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Babin (Weber (TX))
     Bass (Neguse)
     Blumenauer (Beyer)
     Bourdeaux (Correa)
     Boyle, Brendan F. (Neguse)
     Bush (Bowman)
     Carter (LA) (Neguse)
     Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))
     Cherfilus-McCormick (Neguse)
     Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
     DeSaulnier (Beyer)
     Evans (Beyer)
     Gosar (Gaetz)
     Green (TN) (Fleischmann)
     Guthrie (Barr)
     Huffman (Neguse)
     Jones (Beyer)
     Joyce (PA) (Keller)
     Kahele (Correa)
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     Levin (MI) (Correa)
     McBath (Bishop (GA))
     McNerney (Pallone)
     Meeks (Velazquez)
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Rice (SC) (Meijer)
     Ruppersberger (Trone)
     Rush (Bishop (GA))
     Sires (Pallone)
     Stevens (Kuster)
     Stewart (Crawford)
     Taylor (Weber (TX))
     Thompson (CA) (Beyer)
     Vargas (Correa)
     Walorski (Banks)
     Williams (GA) (Neguse)
     Wilson (SC) (Norman)

                          ____________________