Congressional Record, Volume 168 Issue 127 (Friday, July 29, 2022)

[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 127 (Friday, July 29, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H7411-H7419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE XIII WITH RESPECT TO
CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON RULES

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1300 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1300

Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII
for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee
on Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is
waived with respect to any resolution reported through the
legislative day of July 29, 2022.
Sec. 2. (a) Section 7 of House Resolution 1289 shall have
no force or effect.
(b) Clause 7(a)(1) of rule XV shall not apply through the
legislative day of Friday, September 16, 2022.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Reschenthaler), my good friend, 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. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, the Committee on Rules met and reported
a rule, House Resolution 1300, waiving clause 6(a) of rule XIII
requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is
reported from the Committee on Rules against any resolution reported
through the legislative day of July 29, 2022.
The rule also allows certain legislation to qualify for the Consensus
Calendar before the end of Congress.
Madam Speaker, we are here on a same-day rule, which I hope will give
us the opportunity to address a critical and urgent issue: gun violence
in America.
We are here because gun violence is destroying communities, tearing
apart families, and making our streets less safe. This majority is
going to try to do every single thing we possibly can to stop it. I
don't know whether we will succeed, but we are going to try.
Democrats actually passed the Safer Communities Act, the first piece
of major gun safety legislation in decades, and we sent it to President
Biden's desk. We are taking action. We are getting things done, and we
are trying to save lives.
Contrast that with what Republicans did to address gun violence and
crime the last time they were in charge, which is absolutely nothing.
Their answer to gun violence is more guns, and if that is not enough,
even more guns. For God's sake, America already has more guns than
people. How many guns do we need until everybody is safe?
I get it. My Republican friends are going to complain about the
process. They are going to complain about same-day authority, even
though they used it themselves, but let's not go there because we want
to have a productive debate here.
The reality is this: This is the last day before the district work
period, and this is urgent work.
Now, let me tell you, as chairman of the House Committee on Rules, I
want to do whatever I can to get us to vote on and pass an assault
weapons ban because I am sick and tired of the mass shootings and the
terror and the fear. I am sick and tired of shattered families having
to grieve.
Enough is enough. I am going to do everything I can to get this bill
passed, and I am not going to apologize for that. This rule preserves
that option. If it means that we stay here a little bit longer today,
so be it. We need to act with urgency.
Let me just say, for the record, the assault weapons bill that we may
possibly consider today went through regular order. The Committee on
the Judiciary had a hearing; it was marked up. If we decide to bring it
to the floor today, which I hope we will, the Committee on Rules will
meet, and we will debate this, and we will vote on this. But let me
just say to everybody: We have an obligation to act with urgency. We
have a responsibility to address this crisis.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I just want to, for the record, say there is nothing
before us in the rule that has anything to do with any kind of assault
weapons ban or policing. This is simply a rule that would waive the 24-
hour requirement.
Look, to be candid, the Democrats have now opened the door for
Republicans to use this in the future to push

[[Page H7412]]

forward our agenda, which is going to protect the rights and liberties
of individual people.
I would like to take this time to point out the hypocrisy and the
irony I see coming from across the aisle. Let me just talk about that.
Madam Speaker, 9 days is all it took before the Speaker reinstated
her authoritarian COVID lockdown, proving once again that House
Democrats are unable to govern unless they stack the deck. I would also
remind my good friend that he consistently referred to these tactics as
``martial law'' during his time in the minority.
If I can just quote the chair on same-day authority during the 109th
Congress: ``My problem is with significant pieces of legislation, some
legislation which may not have even been heard by committees of
jurisdiction, which may not have been reported out of committees of
jurisdiction, bills that will come before us that the House has never
even considered, things that we will not have an opportunity to be able
to read before we vote on them.''
That was in the 109th Congress. Where is the outrage now?
Madam Speaker, for over 790 days, the Speaker used COVID-19 as a
weapon to deny the Republicans the ability to advocate on behalf of
millions of Americans that they represent. Just last week, it looked
like we were finally returning to regular order. Now, it is more of the
same tricks and tactics.
The blanket same-day rule before us this morning allows House
Democrats to ram through their radical agenda, an agenda that does
nothing to address the serious problems the American people are facing.
What are those problems? Under the Biden administration, our Nation
has careened from one crisis to the next. It has been absolute chaos.
Right now, families across the country are facing 40-year high
inflation that is expected to cost the average American household an
extra $6,000 a year. Yesterday, we were told that we are officially in
a recession when the GDP fell for a second quarter in a row. Although
the Biden administration is attempting to deflect blame by referring to
this latest economic disaster as a ``transition period,'' the American
people know that we are in a recession and facing hard times to come
because of the radical policies of the left.

It is only going to get worse with the recently announced build back
broke deal, which will raise taxes on Americans. It will try to
socialize American healthcare, and it will try to implement the radical
Green New Deal policies that have led to this energy crisis in the
first place.
Madam Speaker, this is no way to run the people's House, but I want
it noted that the door is now open. I find it absolutely hypocritical
that there was outrage against us when Republicans used the same tactic
but now it is okay when the Democrats want to do it. I am looking
forward to the day when power returns to the Republicans, and we will
see if there is outrage at that point.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, the gentleman used the words that we are opening the
door. Opening the door to what? My friends used this all the time when
they were in charge. We learned this from you. I just want to say that,
for the record.
As I have said, I am not the biggest fan of same-day authority, but
it exists for a reason.
In December 2018, when the Democrats were in the minority, I actually
voted for a rule providing for same-day authority. I stood here and
urged my Democrat colleagues to support the rule. More Republicans
voted ``no'' on that rule than Democrats, believe it or not.
Madam Speaker, we are about to break for a, hopefully, productive
district work period, and this rule provides us with a little extra
time and flexibility to be able to consider measures that are critical
to our public safety.
I hope that this rule paves the way for us to bring up an assault
weapons ban. That is what I hope this rule does, and I think that is
urgent. I want to do everything I possibly can to get that bill to the
floor and get it passed.
The gentleman quoted me, and let me quote me, too. With regard to the
same-day authority, I said on the House floor: ``This House needs to
move quickly and responsibly. Everyone understands that, so I will
simply say that I will be voting for this rule. I urge my colleagues to
do the same, so we can finish our business and prevent another
government shutdown.''
That was when you were in charge. That was what I said in response to
when you brought up a same-day rule.
So, nobody is opening the door. You opened that door a long time ago.
But I am going to say, again, if this paves the way for us to be able
to bring up an assault weapons ban, I am not apologizing at all. I want
to get that legislation to the floor. I want to have that debate. I
want to have a vote on it.
People are dying all over this country. They are sick of our
inaction. It is time to act. Enough is enough.
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 am glad the gentleman also quoted himself. You can
tell how I am handling this debate because I don't want to be quoted in
the future when the shoe is on the other foot. But I will point out the
hypocrisy from my friends on the other side of the aisle that their
outrage is obviously selective of who is waiving the rule and who is
not.
Look, we can talk about procedure all day here. That is not going to
fix the real problems that are facing the American people. According to
the National Federation of Independent Business, inflation is the top
problem reported by businesses. This is the highest inflation we have
had since 1980, literally the highest inflation in my lifetime.
Instead of working to lower costs for businesses and workers, the SEC
proposed burdensome new rules requiring businesses to disclose
extensive climate-related data and additional ``climate risks.''
Setting climate policy is the responsibility of Congress, not
unelected career bureaucrats who are absolutely unaccountable to the
American people.
That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I will personally
offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 8589 that
would prohibit the SEC's woke climate rule from moving forward.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, here to explain my amendment is my
good friend, a senior member of the House Committee on Financial
Services and the sponsor of this bill, Congressman French Hill of
Arkansas.
Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Hill).
Mr. HILL. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so
that we can immediately consider H.R. 8589 to prohibit the Securities
and Exchange Commission from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing its
proposed climate rule.
Now, Madam Speaker, it is the Securities and Exchange Commission. It
is not the securities and environment commission.
Last night, we had the pleasure of playing baseball. I am glad to see
my colleagues up early this morning to be on the House floor. It was a
great game. I was proud to see the right team won, but we are once
again back on the floor talking between Republicans and Democrats,
Republicans being the party for growth, opportunity, and liberty, and
the House majority, the Democrats, doubling down, Madam Speaker, on
dumb in the midst of inflation, runaway spending, failed energy policy,
and open borders.

{time} 0930

Today, as the winds of recession and stagflation blow, House
Democrats are here to talk about higher taxes and higher crippling
regulations on job creators. There is no evidence that there

[[Page H7413]]

is any lack of knowledge in public companies that they have an
obligation under the existing securities laws to disclose material
impact from anything to do with climate change, and there is zero
evidence that they are unaware of climate change and are not talking
about it on a regular basis with their shareholders, their boards, and
their employees.
Now, the Securities and Exchange Commission has three mandates:
investor protection, maintaining orderly markets, and capital
formation. But rather than focus on those three missions, Gary Gensler,
the chairman of the SEC, is typical of this administration: a Big
Government, nanny state supervisor who is going beyond his statutory
authority and delving in and trying to become, as I argue, a climate
czar.
His proposal has been met with significant substantive rejection.
Ninety-one advocacy groups just last week, including the Farm Bureau,
community bankers in every State of the country, and the Job Creators
Network wrote the Small Business Committee chairman and ranking member
their opposition to this proposal, and that it should be withdrawn.
Alfredo Ortiz, the president of Job Creators Network, said:

The SEC's proposed rule would be an unnecessary and costly
burden on America's small businesses, at a time when we are
dealing with ``Bideninflation'', higher interest rates, and a
supply chain crisis.

Now, Madam Speaker, Gary Gensler, the chairman, argues that this
proposal is the right thing to do. We argue it is not, that it
shouldn't be implemented, and we shouldn't spend any money there to do
it.
Let me tell you what Nasdaq, the National Association of Securities
Dealers--the market system for the growth of our country--wrote Gary
Gensler. Now, these people are not anti-climate. They are not climate
deniers. They run the Nasdaq marketplace.
They wrote:

The proposal creates additional disclosure obligations
outside of existing frameworks. The proposed timeline for
reporting is unreasonable. Prescriptive disclosures are too
costly.

The Commission itself says this will triple the cost to be a public
company.
Huh? Triple the cost to be a public company?
We don't have enough public companies as there are.

The materiality standards deviate from the law. The
prescriptive disclosures do not facilitate meaningful
comparisons. The prescriptive disclosures create
disincentives for companies. And they say that scope 3
greenhouse gas emissions disclosure requirements could harm
small private suppliers. Finally, they say that the
proposal's timing and scope could harm the initial public
offering market.

This is an economy that has half the public companies we had in 1980,
and this administration and their SEC want to make that even worse and
more costly.
Let me remind you, the Commission itself tripled the cost to be a
public company.
Madam Speaker, we have people who are private companies now because
they cannot afford to be public. And if we don't have public companies,
then we don't have investments in labor union pension plans, we don't
have opportunities for investment in our 401(k) plans, we hurt this
economy, and we hurt job creators if this proposal is implemented.
So it is very easy for me to stand here and argue against it.
Finally, I would say that this is part of a longstanding practice of
this administration to use every tool they have in the regulatory space
to do something that is the prerogative, as my good friend from
Pennsylvania said, of Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. HILL. Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate this point. This is the
responsibility of Congress if we are going to set environment and
energy regulatory policy. It is not the purpose of our independent
regulatory commissions.
Aren't we clear now that the Supreme Court agrees with that position?
Just in the last few days they ruled in a case called West Virginia
v. EPA which basically says: hey, independent regulatory agencies, stay
in your lane. Stay in your lane. Listen to what Congress has written in
the statute. And Congress has not written this in a statute, which is
why the SEC is way out of line with this proposal, while the Nasdaq
market system rejects it, while small businesses reject it, while
public company CEOs reject it, and why the Farm Bureau rejects it.

As I say, this administration came to power with an idea that this
was their number one issue, and you can tell it because the people who
worked on the task force to propose this rule are the Chief of Staff at
the Treasury Department, the head of the National Economic Council, and
the White House staff. All came to Congress with an idea to propose
this rule.
So I urge my colleagues to support Republicans' efforts to not see
this rule implemented and to not fund it. I thank my friend from
Pennsylvania for yielding to me.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, let me just say that I think as everybody knows,
Democrats are focused on inflation. Tackling inflation is certainly our
top priority.
Let's take a look at the facts.
We passed the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act to bring down costs to
families, and almost every Republican voted no.
We passed the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act, but not a
single Republican voted with us.
What is the Republican solution on inflation?
Who the hell knows?
They haven't offered any policy ideas. They seem content cheering for
President Biden to fail and for inflation to go up. In fact, Leader
McConnell is holding hostage a bill to lower costs for families and to
deal with the issue of prescription drugs.
The only plan I have seen from the GOP is from Senator Rick Scott,
Republican, which would raise taxes on the middle class--raise taxes on
the middle class--and put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping
block.
That is the same old same old from my friends on the other side.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an MSNBC opinion article
titled: ``The GOP keeps slamming Biden over inflation, but it has no
solutions to offer.''

[From MSNBC, June 21, 2022]

The GOP Keeps Slamming Biden Over Inflation, But It Has No Solutions To
Offer

(By Dean Obeidallah)

Republicans want you to believe that inflation in the
United States is not part of a global problem but is 100
percent, President Joe Biden's fault.
Just check out their recent over-the-top rhetoric. House
Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has blamed Biden
for ``creating raging inflation.'' In a tweet, Sen. Ted Cruz,
R-Texas, called inflation ``#BidenFlation,'' saying it was
caused by Biden's policies. Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell, R-Ky., even made a speech on the Senate floor last
week focused on inflation, in which he detailed the rising
prices of goods, gas, etc., all leading to the crescendo that
it was Biden and the Democrats' fault.
What the GOP has left out of all its speeches, television
appearances and tweets slamming Biden is even a hint of a
proposal to reduce prices.
But what the GOP has left out of all its speeches,
television appearances and tweets slamming Biden is even a
hint of a proposal to reduce prices. Even worse than the GOP
not having a plan of its own, though, is Republicans'
determination to block Biden's efforts to help Americans.
They've opposed his agenda to lower child care costs, create
affordable housing and more. Biden made that very point in
his June 14 speech about his plans to address inflation, in
which he declared that ``Republicans in Congress are doing
everything they can to stop my plans to bring down costs on
ordinary families.''
There's no disputing that prices in our nation rose 8.6
percent in May since last year at that time, the highest rate
since 1981. Food prices have risen over 10 percent since May
2021, and gas prices have skyrocketed. Just about everything
we use on a daily basis costs more.
Biden candidly acknowledged this reality in last week's
speech, noting that inflation is ``sapping the strength of a
lot of families.'' He said he understands firsthand what this
is like, noting that when he was a child growing up in a
blue-collar family, ``it mattered if the price of food went
up.''
A convergence of issues has caused this spike in inflation.
The well-documented supply chain issues that followed Covid
shutdowns drove up prices. Some of it was fueled by us,
consumers who unleashed our pent-up demand to travel and buy
goods after things reopened. More demand equals higher
prices.

[[Page H7414]]

Russia's attack on Ukraine added to higher gas prices, which
contribute to higher prices for goods, since it costs more to
transport them.
This is in no way a Biden-caused problem--unless
Republicans are telling us he caused inflation worldwide,
which they very well might say before November. A Pew
Research Center report released just last week documented
that in 37 of the 44 nations with ``advanced economies,'' the
``average annual inflation rate in the first quarter of this
year was at least twice what it was in the first quarter of
2020.'' In fact, the United States during the first quarter
of this year was 13 of 44 in terms of inflation, far eclipsed
by countries such as Italy, Israel, Spain, Greece and Turkey.
This leads us to the hard reality that there's no easy
solution for inflation; if there were, Biden would've flipped
that switch months ago. And cynical Republicans know that.
At least Biden does have a plan, which, like the causes of
inflation, is multifaceted.
With respect to gas prices, in addition to releasing oil
from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to increase supplies,
the president last week sent a letter to U.S. oil companies
demanding that they increase the production of oil and to
stop unfairly profiting on Americans' need for gas. He even
threatened to ``use all reasonable and appropriate Federal
Government tools and emergency authorities to increase
refinery capacity and output in the near term.'' In his
speech last week, Biden noted that on food costs, he was
``working closely with our European partners to get 20
million tons of grains locked in Ukraine out onto the market
to help bring down food prices.'' The president also
explained his efforts to reduce other household costs to
offset the higher gas and food prices, such as capping the
cost of insulin at $35--a bill for which passed the House in
March but still has not passed the Senate due to lack of
Republican support.
So where is the GOP plan to address inflation? Republicans
have had plenty of time to come up with one, given that they
have been screaming since last summer that Biden caused
inflation.
Here's the best I can find: In May, Sen. Rick Scott, R-
Fla., the chair of the National Republican Senatorial
Committee, laid out his plan. ``The most effective thing Joe
Biden can do to solve the inflation crisis he created is
resign,'' Scott said. Then there's McCarthy, who earlier this
month offered the following proposal as his ``solution'' to
rising costs: ``I call on Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats
to hold a prime-time hearing on the out-of-control inflation
their policies have created.''
Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., the third-ranking member of
the House GOP, isn't even pretending her party has a plan.
She recently said of inflation, ``House Republicans will
address these crises when we earn back control of the House
this November.'' Sure, America, let's trust the party of tax
cuts for the wealthy to look out for the rest of us.
We all get how politics works. The party out of power
blames the party in power for everything that's bad. But in
this case, inflation is directly impacting the lives of all
Americans. It's time Democrats and the media press every
Republican who blames Biden for inflation to answer this
simple question: What is the GOP plan to reduce it? Americans
deserve an answer.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, since my friends want to change the
subject, let's change the subject.
Republicans right now, as we are meeting here, over in the Senate are
trying to kill the PACT Act, a bill to guarantee healthcare to veterans
with service-related cancers. This is a bill that passed the Senate
originally 84-14, and it passed the House with a majority vote of 342.
Many of my Republican colleagues supported that. I appreciate that. But
now Republicans are trying to kill it and play politics with it over in
the Senate. They are putting politics ahead of people when, in fact, we
should be putting people ahead of politics.
So while we are here having this conversation, I would urge my
Republican friends to pick up the phone and call your counterparts in
the Senate and say: Get out of the way and do what is right for our
veterans.
My office is getting calls from veterans who were exposed to burn
pits when they were overseas. I am sure my Republican friends are
getting calls in their offices. You don't have to agree on everything,
but I thought we all agreed on this.
Can we please tell Mitch McConnell and tell the Republicans to get
out of the way and allow this bill to go forward?
That might be a good use of time right now while we are having this
conversation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), who is a member of the Financial Services
Committee.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time
and his leadership on this.
Madam Speaker, every day capital markets are under attack here with
this Securities and Exchange Commission.
The climate disclosure rule, which was released in March of this year
totals over 500 pages--over 500 pages--and includes over 1,000
technical footnotes. And oh, by the way, the SEC initially gave
everybody 30 days to comment on that--30 days. Now, you can't even get
through the analysis of the original 500 pages much less the 1,000
technical footnotes on that within those 30 days. But in reality the
SEC doesn't really know what this far-reaching rule will cost small,
independent, and nonpublic businesses across our country.
In fact, very deep in the summary of the rule the SEC admits:

In many cases, we are unable to reliably quantify the
potential benefits and costs of the rule and, therefore, we
encourage commenters to provide us with relevant data or
empirical evidence that would allow us to do so.

Let that sink in: We have no idea what the impact is, so why don't
you just give us some data to help us work through this? Now, I remind
you, this is not a study, and this is not research. This is a finalized
proposed rule that the SEC is trying to jam through in 30 days.
Oh, but they expanded that now, so thank you very much. Now, there
are three basic rules on real estate.
What is the most important part about real estate?
Location, location, location.
Well, for the SEC it should be materiality, materiality, materiality.
How is this information material to a publicly traded company and to
the investors who are investing and putting their hard-earned money
into those companies.
So materiality, materiality, materiality should be the battle cry.
But it is not with this SEC.
In fact, in recent months, the Commission has put forth a huge volume
of additional proposals. At times it doesn't appear to be fully
informed about the likely economic consequences of the proposed rules
and that display significant misunderstandings of the activity the
Commission seeks to regulate. So without proper economic analysis,
mistakes and unintended consequences are going to be inevitable.
Madam Speaker, since late last year, the SEC has embarked on a
remarkable rulemaking agenda. In the 14 months since he was sworn into
office, Chair Gensler has charted a path for the SEC unlike it has seen
in its 88-year history. To be charitable, he is pushing the envelope.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to
the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. HUIZENGA. To be charitable, this aggressive stance of the chair
is unprecedented. The reality is they can't get their agenda done
through the legislative process, so they are just going to regulate it.
So the SEC is going to continue to push the boundaries of the statutory
authority Congress has given them.
Unfortunately, instead of protecting investors, maintaining fair,
orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitating capital formation--
that is part of their three-part directive, facilitating capital
formation--they are actually going to regulate small, privately held
companies in your district right out of business.
So Congress did not establish the SEC to set climate policy nor for
it to be the final arbiter of businesses' strategies to combat climate
change. In her recent dissent over the proposed rule, Commissioner
Hester Peirce rightfully noted that the SEC is not the securities and
environment commission.
My colleagues and I have grave concerns that this rule will set a
precedent that will allow regulators to expand their authorities far
beyond the bounds of the law. In fact, we have seen some recent Supreme
Court cases about that with the EPA. The proposed climate rule shifts
the SEC's rulemaking authority--to be charitable--taking a novel,
activist approach to climate policy.
What is next?
All of it. Frankly, that is what is on his agenda: all of it. They
want all of

[[Page H7415]]

it. That is their idea of how this economy ought to be running, not how
to protect investors, not how to facilitate efficient markets, and
certainly not how to build capital. That is not the job of the SEC that
has been proposed here.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Hill's resolution
and restore sanity to the rulemaking process.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, let me just say that I really enjoyed listening to my
friends on the other side of the aisle. They are opposed to this rule
because the process will expedite progress on behalf of the American
people. Yet they are not outraged over using process to block progress
for the American people.
Again, since we are changing the subject, I didn't hear anything
about the veterans who right now are desperately pleading with
Republicans in the Senate to pass the PACT Act. The gentleman even got
extra time and didn't mention that at all.
Again, I would urge my Republicans, as we are still here today,
before you leave, call Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, call
your Republican counterparts in the Senate, and say: please pass the
PACT Act. Please do that now.
Our veterans who are suffering from cancer as a result of their
service and being exposed to burn pits are desperately pleading with my
Republican friends to stop blocking it.
Do you want to be outraged about something today?
Be outraged about that.
So, again, I would urge that they do something.
Many of my colleagues on the Republican side supported the PACT Act
when it came before the House.

{time} 0945

A majority of Republicans in the Senate voted to support it; but now
they are putting politics ahead of people. It should be reversed. Put
people ahead of politics.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to direct
their comments to the Chair.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want the Record to reflect that I am not outraged about this
rule. I just was simply, at the beginning of my remarks, my opening
statement, pointing out the hypocrisy from my friends across the other
side of the aisle who had this selective outrage when we waived the 24-
hour requirement. But it is okay when they do it.
And again, I am almost gleefully looking forward to the opportunity
when we are in the majority for myself to help the then Chairman Cole
of the Rules Committee do the same thing; and we will see what kind of
hypocrisy comes from the other side of the aisle and how they will then
have outrage when we do it.
But I am not outraged about this. I think that if we are going to
move forward today, we should defeat the previous question. That is
what I am passionate about, and that is what my friends that have
spoken here today are passionate about, because they want to run a
bill, authored by my good friend from Arkansas, that would actually
help the economic crisis; that would actually help fight inflation.
So, please don't confuse passion for helping the American people out
of this financial problem with outrage. There is no outrage on this
side of the aisle.
But to explain more, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), my good friend, and a rising star of the
Financial Services Committee.
Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so
we can immediately consider H.R. 8589.
We heard earlier our friends across the aisle say that understand
this rule, which they could pretty much bring up any bill they so
desire, they are going to address inflation.
Well, count me excited that my colleagues across the aisle are
finally ready to address inflation; inflation brought upon all
Americans by the reckless policies of Democratic one-party control;
reckless policies of--starting--this administration by spending $1.9
trillion; reckless policies by refusing to unleash American energy. And
Americans are paying the price for the reckless policies of Democrats
here in Washington.
It is early in the morning. People are making their way here, up to
the House floor, following a great victory by my Republicans in the
Congressional baseball game last night--10-0, I may note.
But what is really playing out across America right now is people
can't afford the things that their family needs. I was speaking to a
woman the other day in south Milwaukee at a gas station, and I asked
her how much it costs her to now fill up her car with gas. And she
looked at me and she said, Bryan, I don't know because I have 40 bucks,
and 40 bucks doesn't fill up my tank with gas.
I spoke to another woman who said, Bryan, I can't take my daughter
out to dinner on Friday night for pizza because I can't afford it
because costs keep going up.
Americans are suffering from runaway inflation from the reckless
policies from one-party Democratic control. We have an open rule. The
Democrats could bring up any bill today. They could bring up any bill.
Americans are getting clobbered, clobbered with runaway inflation;
energy costs going through the roof. This woman in South Milwaukee
can't afford to fill up her car with gas.
And what will we see in the bills brought up today? They will intend
to distract, to change the subject. They want to talk about bills that
already passed the House. They want to talk about bills that have
nothing to do with inflation because they don't care about the woman in
South Milwaukee who can't afford to fill up her car with gas. They
don't care about the woman who can't afford to take her kids out to
pizza on Friday nights.
And count me as darn surprised if we see legislation brought by the
Democratic majority today that addresses the inflation crisis; that
addresses the energy crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. STEIL. Madam Speaker, they are going to send everybody in this
institution home for more than a month with runaway inflation; interest
rates going up so people can't afford to buy a house; an energy policy
that refuses to unleash American energy so that this woman in South
Milwaukee can't afford to fill up her car.
Republicans have answers to the challenges of the day. And I thank my
colleague from Arkansas for his thoughtful bill that would be brought
up if we defeat this previous question; that would actually put a check
on the runaway bureaucratic process that we see. This one attacks the
runaway process at the Securities and Exchange Commission, that should
properly be named securities and environmental commission.
And my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Madam Speaker,
really like renaming things, so I suggest, while we redefine recession,
we throw in redefining the SEC today.
People are getting clobbered. The bill by my colleague from Arkansas
is a pretty thoughtful approach. It says, hey, instead of all this
additional regulation, these costs that get passed on to consumers at
the end of the day, maybe what we do is we focus on getting some
economic growth back; bringing inflation down.
And so count me as excited if, under this rule--and again, the
Democrats could bring any bill to the floor on the last day. Is that
bill going to be something that substantively and meaningfully
addresses inflation, addresses energy costs? Or are they going to bring
up another topic to distract the American people from the crisis that
is playing out across our country?

Count me as shocked if we see a bill that addresses inflation today.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
So, Madam Speaker, I don't know who that guy who was yelling is, but
I would refer him to my earlier comments on all the things that we are
doing to combat inflation and the stuff that we will be rolling out in
the days ahead.
But I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go
over to

[[Page H7416]]

the Senate and yell at Mitch McConnell so that we can help our
veterans. I mean, it is unconscionable that, as we are gathering here
right now, Republicans in the Senate are blocking a bill to provide
care for veterans exposed to burn pits who have cancer.
I mean, what is going on here? I mean, people who are responsible for
that are unfit to serve in the United States Congress, quite frankly.
Do you want to be outraged about something? Be outraged about that at
this moment. And we also should be outraged at the alarming rate of gun
violence in this country. And my hope is that this same-day rule will
pave the way for the Rules Committee to meet and to bring forward a ban
on assault weapons so we can save lives in this country. So that is
what this is all about today.
But, again, with all of the yelling and screaming, please go over to
the other Chamber and yell and scream at them because right now a lot
of our veterans are concerned that they will succeed in killing a bill
that will provide them healthcare that they desperately need.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, it is quite remarkable that the gentleman is now
telling us that this is about gun-related bills, because 14 hours ago
we had questions in the Rules Committee. Those questions went unasked
because the minority is unsure.
You know who was unsure when they were in the minority? My good
friend. Let me quote him again. When the Republicans tried to waive the
24-hour requirement, my good friend said: ``Once again, we are here on
the floor debating a martial law rule that also makes the suspension
day. Here we are, once again, unsure of what we will be considering
today, tonight, or tomorrow.''
So last night, at 7 P.M., my good friend, ranking member of the Rules
Committee, Mr. Cole, asked a series of questions because we wanted to
get some light shed on it. He asked, what would this rule specifically
be used for? The majority said they didn't know. They were unsure.
He asked if this were to be related to gun-related bills, and if
those bills would be changed. The majority said they didn't know. We
are unsure here.
He asked if this authority would be used for other bills. The
majority said they didn't know.
He asked if the House would be in session this weekend, and also the
response was, the majority didn't know.
So it's amazing how the majority is, today, so confident on what is
being run today through this rule when, just 14 hours ago, when we
asked those questions, those answers were not provided to the minority.
But here to talk more about the resolution that I will personally
offer if we defeat the previous question is my good friend. I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL. Madam Speaker, listening to the other side, and listening
to my friend from Pennsylvania, I hear a lot about uncertainty; that we
are not sure what we are here for; we are not sure what we are going to
bring up on the House floor.
Well, I will tell you what: We are certain that inflation is hurting
American families. We are certain that people don't know how to fill up
their car; what that is going to cost; what they are going to
sacrifice; moving from beef to chicken; working on prescriptions this
week, maybe gas next week. So we are certain the American people have
inflation, top concern.
This bill proposed today will help attack inflation by reducing the
costs that will be imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission in
this act.
And I will read, Madam Speaker, from the Task Force on Climate-
Related Financial Disclosures, the Bloomberg Commission, and it says:
All these efforts must be cost-effective, reliable. They must be
comparable across countries, across industries, within industries. And
the proposal of SEC does not do that.
So I hope that we will be successful in H.R. 8589, which will save
the government money. And if we are looking for bills to bring up, I
say to my friend from Pennsylvania, I recommend H.R. 7209, which is the
Price Stability Act, which will focus the Federal Reserve solely on
fighting inflation; not fighting climate change; not fighting
socioeconomic disparities, focused on inflation because inflation is a
thief. That is what we should be on this floor debating.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
So, Madam Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke was yielded time
again, and again, didn't say anything about the veterans who are
getting screwed by Senate Republicans right now in the other Chamber.
Right now, we should take our outrage and we should demand that
Republicans get out of the way.
And, by the way, to my friend from Pennsylvania, I just went back and
I read the transcript of what our exchange was in the Rules Committee,
and I think I was pretty clear.
When I am looking at the transcript, I was asked last night, you
know, why we needed this authority, and I said it was to consider
public safety bills.
I was further asked if we would use it to consider gun legislation,
and I said, yes, potentially.
Now, I don't know whether it is my Massachusetts accent or what, but
I think I was pretty clear about what we were going to bring to the
floor today. And, again, I hope that we will follow through with what I
said yesterday.
So this idea that, oh, I didn't know--and by the way, there are
times, as I said at the opening, when same-day authority is, to me,
necessary. There are other times when it is not. And when the
Republicans were in charge and they used it for frivolous things, yeah,
I objected to it. But when they used it in an attempt to try to keep
government open, I favored it.
So I don't know what the gentleman is talking about, hypocrisy. I
mean, I have been in favor of it when I was in the minority, and I have
been opposed to it when I was in the minority. So it all depends on the
circumstances.
I think maybe my Republican friends have trouble with nuance and
trying to understand the complexities of the system here. But I am
totally comfortable with my position, past, and present.
And by the way, if this same-day authority means that we can bring up
an assault weapons ban, I don't apologize to anybody. I don't apologize
to anybody. I think it is the right thing to do.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1000

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to again say we asked a litany of questions to try to give the
minority guidance on what bills would be considered today, the context
of those bills, the timing of those bills, whether we would be here
this weekend. The response constantly was either: I hope not; I am
unsure; I don't know. So, here we are, in the dark.
But for the purpose of a rebuttal, I yield an additional 1 minute to
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my good friend.
Mr. HILL. Madam Speaker, I really don't understand this debate,
talking about the PACT Act, my friend from Massachusetts. That has
passed the House. Let the Senate do its work.
We supported it here. Let's be serious here. I voted for the bill.
The Senate is working out some concern they had. They changed the bill.
They made the bill that is controversial over there. Let them figure it
out.
In the Senate, they don't even know that revenue bills originate in
the House. It was blue-slipped. They don't really know what they are
doing over in the upper Chamber.
We know we have the advantage over them on that, but what we are
talking about today are bills being considered today. The Speaker is
leaving on some foreign trip tonight, so we are rushing around. We
don't know why we are here today, and the people deserve to know in
advance what we are voting on so we can prepare our arguments.
So, it is not about some bill over in the Senate. It is about what
bills will be on the floor of the House today.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
The gentleman said we should let the Senate do its work. Exactly. The
Senate Republicans are blocking the Senate from doing its work. What do
my friends not understand?

[[Page H7417]]

Veterans with cancer are depending on Republicans to get out of the
way so they can get the care that they, quite frankly, are entitled to,
that they deserve.
It passed overwhelmingly originally in the Senate. It passed
overwhelmingly in the House. But Senate Republicans are playing
politics with the lives of our veterans.
I am outraged by that. Maybe my friends on the other side are not,
but we ought to be demanding that they move immediately.
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 want to quote my good friend, the chairman, again,
this time from 2017, when he stated that martial law allows the
majority to ``rush their bill with its brand-new backroom deals to the
floor today without any proper deliberation.''
I think that pretty much sums up perfectly what we are doing here
today.
Madam Speaker, 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. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I don't think it is appropriate for my Republican
friends to lecture us on hypocrisy. The last time the Republicans were
in charge of this place, they ran it into the ground.
When Republicans were in charge, they broke the record for the most
closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.
When Republicans were in charge and our country was on the brink of a
shutdown, the Rules Committee, under Republican control, held an
emergency meeting. Do you know what that emergency meeting was on? Not
on emergency funding but on cheese, actually, as we were about to shut
the government down. We had a major crisis, and they did an emergency
meeting on cheese.
They couldn't even get their act together to keep the lights on. They
literally lost the majority because of how badly they ran this place,
and then they handed us a shutdown of government, the longest shutdown
in history, by the way. That cost American taxpayers $11 billion.
When Republicans were in charge, I voted to give them same-day
authority. I stood on this floor and urged my Democratic colleagues to
support the rule because I wanted to give us extra flexibility to do
the work the American people had asked us to do.
Republicans ran this place like a dictatorship, and then they tried
to turn our country into one on January 6, 2021, a day that will live
forever in history as a date that a twice-impeached ex-President and
Republicans tried to unconstitutionally overturn a free and fair
election and subvert the will of the American people in an attempted
coup.
So, please do not lecture us about Democratic process or any process
at all. Do not lecture us on hypocrisy.
I said last night in the Rules Committee what I hoped we would bring
forward today, and I still hope we will move forward on an assault
weapons ban.
Do you know why? Because people in this country are being massacred,
and they are tired of thoughts and prayers. They are tired of press
releases in which we say that our hearts are with the families of those
who were killed.
They want action. The question is whether or not we can deliver on
what the American people want.
Do you want to talk about outrage? I am outraged by the gun violence
in this country. I am outraged that an 18-year-old who can't legally
have a sip of beer can go into a gun store and buy an AR-15 and then go
out and kill people, massacre people. Enough of this.
This rule preserves the option, if we decide to move forward, to be
able to move forward. That is what this is all about. We can talk about
whatever you want to talk about, but the bottom line is that is what
this rule does.
We have an obligation to act with urgency. We have a responsibility
to address this crisis.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as
follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 1300

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 8589) to prohibit the Securities and Exchange
Commission from finalizing the proposed rule titled ``The
Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related
Disclosures for Investors''. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Financial Services; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 8589.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote. 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 216,
nays 205, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 405]

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
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)
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
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
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--205

[[Page H7418]]

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)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
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

NOT VOTING--9

Good (VA)
Griffith
Hartzler
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (TX)
Kinzinger
Porter
Speier
Zeldin

{time} 1116

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 (Pfluger)
Bass (Neguse)
Beyer (Connolly)
Blumenauer (Kuster)
Bourdeaux (Correa)
Bowman (Ocasio-Cortez)
Boyle, Brendan F. (Trone)
Bush (Ocasio-Cortez)
Bustos (Kuster)
Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))
Casten (Neguse)
Cherfilus-McCormick (Neguse)
Comer (Keller)
Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
DeGette (Perlmutter)
DeSaulnier (Perlmutter)
Deutch (Wasserman Schultz)
Donalds (Norman)
Evans (Neguse)
Gonzalez (OH) (Meijer)
Gosar (Gaetz)
Green (TN) (Fleischmann)
Guthrie (Barr)
Herrera Beutler (Moore (UT))
Higgins (NY) (Pallone)
Huffman (Neguse)
Jacobs (NY) (Fleischmann)
Jayapal (Pallone)
Jeffries (Velazquez)
Jones (Trone)
Joyce (PA) (Keller)
Kahele (Correa)
Katko (Meijer)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
LaHood (Wenstrup)
Levin (MI) (Correa)
McBath (Bishop (GA))
McEachin (Trone)
McHenry (Wagner)
McNerney (Pallone)
Moore (WI) (Neguse)
Nehls (Weber (TX))
Newman (Trone)
Rice (NY) (Wasserman Schultz)
Rice (SC) (Meijer)
Ruppersberger (Trone)
Ryan (Kuster)
Sires (Pallone)
Spartz (Banks)
Stefanik (Keller)
Stevens (Kuster)
Stewart (Crawford)
Strickland (Neguse)
Swalwell (Correa)
Taylor (Armstrong)
Thompson (CA) (Correa)
Tlaib (Dingell)
Torres (NY) (Correa)
Trahan (Trone)
Van Drew (Fleischmann)
Vargas (Correa)
Walorski (Banks)
Williams (GA) (Neguse)
Wilson (SC) (Norman)

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Lee of Nevada). 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. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 206, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 406]

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)
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
Pelosi
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
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--206

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
Golden
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
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 (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schrader
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

NOT VOTING--7

Good (VA)
Griffith
Hartzler
Johnson (LA)
Kinzinger
Rogers (AL)
Zeldin

{time} 1130

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.

members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

[[Page H7419]]

Cherfilus-McCormick (Neguse)
Comer (Keller)
Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
DeGette (Perlmutter)
DeSaulnier (Perlmutter)
Deutch (Wasserman Schultz)
Donalds (Norman)
Evans (Neguse)
Gonzalez (OH) (Meijer)
Gosar (Gaetz)
Green (TN) (Fleischmann)
Guthrie (Barr)
Herrera Beutler (Moore (UT))
Higgins (NY) (Pallone)
Huffman (Neguse)
Jacobs (NY) (Fleischmann)
Jayapal (Pallone)
Jeffries
(Velazquez)
Johnson (TX) (Pallone)
Jones (Trone)
Joyce (PA) (Keller)
Kahele (Correa)
Katko (Meijer)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
LaHood (Wenstrup)
Levin (MI) (Correa)
McBath (Bishop (GA))
McEachin (Trone)
McHenry (Wagner)
McNerney (Pallone)
Moore (WI) (Neguse)
Nehls (Weber (TX))
Newman (Trone)
Porter (Wexton)
Rice (NY) (Wasserman Schultz)
Rice (SC) (Meijer)
Ruppersberger (Trone)
Ryan (Kuster)
Sires (Pallone)
Spartz (Banks)
Speier (Garcia (TX))
Stefanik (Keller)
Stevens (Kuster)
Stewart (Crawford)
Strickland (Neguse)
Swalwell (Correa)
Taylor (Armstrong)
Thompson (CA) (Correa)
Tlaib (Dingell)
Torres (NY) (Correa)
Trahan (Trone)
Van Drew (Fleischmann)
Vargas (Correa)
Walorski (Banks)
Williams (GA) (Neguse)
Wilson (SC) (Norman)

____________________