[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)
____________________