[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

     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

[[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

     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)

[[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)

                          ____________________