[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 196 (Wednesday, November 29, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H5945-H5957]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5283, PROTECTING OUR COMMUNITIES 
     FROM FAILURE TO SECURE THE BORDER ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR 
  CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5961, NO FUNDS FOR IRANIAN TERRORISM ACT; AND 
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S.J. RES. 32, PROVIDING FOR 
   CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF 
  CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION RELATING TO ``SMALL BUSINESS LENDING 
        UNDER THE EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT (REGULATION B)''

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 891 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 891

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5283) to prohibit the use of Federal funds to 
     provide housing to specified aliens on any land under

[[Page H5946]]

     the administrative jurisdiction of the Federal land 
     management agencies. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 118-15 shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No 
     further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order 
     except those printed in part A of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such further 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     on any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     5961) to freeze certain Iranian funds involved in the 2023 
     hostage deal between the United States and Iran, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment recommended by the Committee on Foreign Affairs now 
     printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     118-14, modified by the amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and 
     in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, 
     as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as 
     amended, shall be in order except those printed in part C of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such further 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     on any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (S. J. 
     Res. 32) providing for congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
     submitted by the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection 
     relating to ``Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit 
     Opportunity Act (Regulation B)''. All points of order against 
     consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint 
     resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution 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 or 
     their respective designees; and (2) one motion to commit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. 
Leger Fernandez), 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. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the 
underlying legislation.
  House Resolution 891 provides for consideration of three measures: 
H.R. 5283, H.R. 5961, and S.J. Res. 32.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5283, the Protecting our 
Communities from Failure to Secure the Border Act of 2023 under a 
structured rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
Resources or their respective designees, and provides one motion to 
recommit.
  The rule makes in order two amendments.
  Further, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5961, the No 
Funds for Iranian Terrorism Act under a structured rule, with 1 hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective 
designees, and provides one motion to recommit.
  The rule makes in order 12 amendments.
  Finally, the rule provides for consideration of S.J. Res. 32, a 
resolution of Congressional disapproval related to a rule by the 
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on small business lending under a 
closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
Services or their respective designees, and provides one motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, since President Joe Biden took office, there have been 
7.8 million illegal immigrant encounters, 1.7 million known got-aways, 
and hundreds of individuals on the terrorist watch list have been 
stopped at our southern border.
  Instead of fixing this issue, the Biden administration and far-left 
radical Democrats have placed illegal immigrants in our public schools, 
in our airports, our police stations, and now our Federal lands.
  In New York City, the Biden administration and far-left New York 
Democrats are housing hundreds of illegal immigrants on National Park 
Service land.
  H.R. 5283 revokes New York City's lease and prevents all national 
parks and Federal lands from becoming tent cities.
  Additionally, H.R. 5861 blocks President Biden's $6 billion ransom 
gift to the Iranian regime.
  As an Iraq war veteran, I have seen firsthand Iran's death and 
destruction in the Middle East. They are responsible for the deaths of 
hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans in the Middle East.
  Since Hamas' attack on October 7 against our number one ally, Israel, 
Iranian-backed proxies have attacked U.S. forces over 70 times in Iraq 
and Syria.
  This is unthinkable. What is more unthinkable is that on the 22nd 
anniversary of 9/11, the Biden administration announced $6 billion in 
sanctions relief from the number one sponsor of terrorism, Iran.
  These billions in sanctions relief will undoubtedly lead to more 
terrorist attacks, more attacks on Americans, and more attacks on 
innocent Israelis. That is why House Republicans will take action to 
freeze the funding that the Biden administration wants to send to the 
Ayatollah.
  Lastly, the underlying legislation we will consider this week will 
address the Biden administration's CFPB guidance that places burdensome 
regulations on lenders and small business.

[[Page H5947]]

  This new CFPB regulation will result in more compliance costs, it 
will create privacy concerns for small businesses, and adds to the 
bureaucratic regulatory environment that hinders hardworking Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my colleague on the Committee on 
Rules, for yielding, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, House Republicans are spending a week on 
legislation that fails to solve many of the very real issues facing our 
constituents.
  Last week, when I was in my district, my constituents shared with me 
their aspirations, their worries, and their vision for how to make our 
communities thrive for generations. Veterans from Hobbs described how 
hard it is to travel for access to healthcare and other services--
services that they have earned.
  Seniors from Hobbs described the concern about paying their bills on 
a fixed income and the need to reduce costs. The Lovington mayor led us 
on a tour of the wastewater plant as he described the need to invest in 
water infrastructure in rural communities and thanked us for doing that 
and promoting such investment.
  In Taos, New Mexico, ranchers and farmers working with the New Mexico 
Acequia Association, which for those of you who don't know, is a 
centuries-old system of providing irrigation to farmers and ranchers in 
New Mexico.
  They talked to me about their concerns about growing their business 
amid the climate crisis that we are seeing and the drought conditions. 
These are real challenges that our constituents want us to fix, 
challenges that Congress has the ability and responsibility to address.
  Does this rule make in order any bills to help address veterans' need 
to access healthcare?
  Does it make in order any bills to help seniors pay their bills?
  Does it help our rural communities access rural clean water systems?
  Does it help our farmers keep their heritage and grow our foods?
  Nope. It doesn't.
  What are we doing this week?
  We have a bill that prevents the use of Federal lands to provide 
temporary shelters for certain noncitizens, including migrants who are 
legally applying for asylum. It is a bill that fails to address the 
humanitarian crisis or security needs at our border.
  Our colleagues across the aisle have consistently repeated harmful 
theories, like the invasion theory, where they seek to demonize the 
communities I represent and from which I come. Their talking points 
simply inflame the issue rather than looking to solve it.

  This is just more of the same from a majority that is unable to 
govern effectively. Instead, we should pass legislation that actually 
improves our immigration system and acknowledges and upholds the 
dignity of immigrant communities.
  There are real solutions to deal with the border. The Republican 
majority just doesn't want us to vote on them on this floor.
  For example, the Dream and Promise Act has vast support from 
Americans, but will we see Republicans put it on the floor?
  Nope.
  The Farmer Workforce Modernization Act that has bipartisan support 
would help agricultural communities and help farmworkers, but will we 
see Republicans put it on the floor?
  Nope.
  We could move these bills, if only Republicans would stop blocking 
them. We will also consider today a resolution to reverse a Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau rule. That rule would require lenders to 
collect and report information about the small business credit 
applications they receive, including geographic and demographic data, 
lending decisions, and the price of credit.
  We know that many rural small businesses struggle with access to 
financial resources. It is important to know whether or not the banks, 
especially the big banks, are serving them.
  Americans, the middle class, and small businesses want somebody on 
their side because they know the big banks and corporations aren't. 
That is why Americans across the political spectrum overwhelmingly 
support the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
  Despite the strong public support, Republicans continue to attack the 
Bureau. The Democrats are on the side of small businesses when we stand 
up for the Bureau and its work.
  We should support initiatives to bring capital to entrepreneurs and 
innovators, especially in rural America. A lot of that work happens 
because of credit unions, I might add. I support efforts to address the 
credit unions' concerns about the smaller entities.
  A CRA, though, as proposed by the Republicans, is an overly broad and 
blunt tool that prevents an agency from promulgating any regulation in 
an area that it addresses.
  This CRA that they have put forward would tie the hands of the 
Bureau. It would prevent them from rulemaking regarding data for small 
businesses, women-and minority-owned businesses.
  We need access to this data to make sure that small businesses, 
women- and minority-owned businesses, rural businesses have access to 
capital. Investing in these small businesses is how we grow the middle 
class, and that is what Democrats are focused on. How do we grow the 
middle class.
  Lastly, H.R. 5961 would freeze certain Iranian funds involved in the 
2023 hostage deal between the U.S. and Iran. We must acknowledge, and 
do acknowledge, that Iran is dangerous and a state sponsor of 
terrorism. We cannot allow the terror to continue.
  I must remind my Republican colleagues that the Rules Committee 
already reported a rule for this bill. Their own party blocked the 
House from voting on this bill when they voted down the rule on the 
floor.
  This week we should be debating a bill with aid for our allies, 
including Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and others around the world, but I 
guess we are not.
  I guess we should not be surprised with this rule. This is just a 
continuation of the chaos and closed process that has been a hallmark 
of this Republican-led House. We have seen over 40 closed rules on the 
floor that have blocked two-thirds of bipartisan amendments, including 
blocking half of all Republican amendments.
  Republican leadership clearly hasn't made good on their promise to 
make the legislative process more open, inclusive, and accommodating.
  This year, Republicans will have wasted nearly a month on internal 
politics just to elect a Speaker--time that could have been spent 
lowering costs for seniors and helping those veterans I mentioned 
earlier, time that could have been spent helping our farmers and 
ranchers, time that could have been spent helping to grow our middle 
class.
  As Republicans continue to press forward legislation that seeks to 
further destroy and divide, House Democrats are working to improve the 
lives of everyday people.
  House Democrats are committed to putting people over politics, to do 
what is right for everyday Americans; lowering costs, growing the 
middle class, and defending fundamental freedoms.
  As we have all year, House Democrats continue to extend the hand of 
partnership to get things done for the American people, including 
passing legislation that invests in working families and keeping our 
Nation safe.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule and a ``no'' vote on 
the underlying bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we are about to witness a real-time fact check here. My 
colleague from New Mexico is talking about the amount of closed rules. 
I would remind my friends across the aisle that in the 117th Congress--
and that is when they were deciding which rules were going to be run--
58 of their rules out of 89 were closed rules; that is approximately 61 
percent. Spare me the lecture on closed rules.
  We also have one bill coming to the floor that has 12 separate 
amendments. It is kind of rich hearing that criticism. What is even 
richer is the criticism that we, as Republicans, have done nothing 
about the border. Absolutely laughable.

[[Page H5948]]

  As the Biden administration and far-left radical Democrats have 
ignored the southern border crisis, we passed H.R. 2 twice. Twice we 
passed it. I would invite any Democrat that actually wants to do 
something about the southern border to just vote for this underlying 
legislation that we are running.

  Again, House Republicans have passed the Secure the Border Act of 
2023. I will remind my friends across the aisle that act restarts 
construction of the border wall. It deploys advanced technology to the 
southern border. It increases Border Patrol agents and their pay. It 
strengthens and protects those provisions for unaccompanied minor 
children. It protects them from human trafficking, and it ends the 
disastrous policy of catch and release. It ends the catch and release 
policies of the far-left Democrats.
  We have passed the FY24 Homeland Security Act as well that provides--
wait for it--over $2 billion for the border wall. It provides almost a 
half million dollars for 22,000 Border Patrol agents and billions in 
funding to remove dangerous criminals who have entered the United 
States interior illegally.
  Now, this week, House Republicans will block the Biden administration 
and far-left radical Democrats from turning our Federal lands into the 
illegal immigrant housing that the Biden administration and far-left 
Democrats in our cities have turned them into.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).
  Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
resolution and to call attention to the ongoing crisis at our southern 
border.
  President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas have turned our southern 
border into a land of lawlessness, triggering one of the worst national 
security, humanitarian, and public safety disasters our country has 
ever seen.
  On day one, President Biden immediately repealed strong border 
security policies that were working. Under Biden and Mayorkas, we have 
shattered every illegal immigration record on the books, even as 
Mayorkas knowingly deceives Congress and the American people by saying, 
``our border is closed.''
  This administration's policies deliberately unleashed chaos by 
turning control of the border over to Mexican cartels and human 
traffickers, while simultaneously obstructing States' efforts to secure 
the border and denying CBP and law enforcement officers the resources 
necessary to stop the flow of deadly drugs, human slaves, and, very 
likely, terrorist cells into our country.
  As a Representative of the great State of Texas, I see the results, 
the consequences of these deadly policies every day throughout my 
State.
  This bill is crucial for ensuring public policies and public spaces 
that are paid for with taxpayer dollars do not become vast encampments 
for unvetted migrants, many of whom will be indebted to violent 
cartels.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this 
important national security reform. It is clear that Secretary Mayorkas 
has no regard for the rule of law, and he does not take securing our 
border seriously.
  Make no mistake, as long as Mayorkas remains in office, our border 
will remain unsecured and vulnerable to human and drug trafficking.
  I stand firm in advocating for his impeachment, and I call on the 
Biden administration to offer border States the support they need to 
keep our communities safe.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This entire Congress, Republicans have tended to use titles for their 
bills that are extremely misleading. For example, today's rule includes 
the so-called Protecting our Communities from Failure to Secure the 
Border Act. Interestingly, though, this bill does not actually secure 
the border. In fact, it does not include any resources for States to 
deal with migrants who are awaiting processing. How is that protecting 
our communities? Let's invest where we need to address this issue.
  Instead of addressing real problems at the border, Republicans are 
bringing up this unnecessary legislation to attack vulnerable migrants 
under the guise of protecting public lands. Remember, this is a public 
lands bill. It came out of the Natural Resources Committee. If they 
really cared about protecting public lands, they wouldn't have passed 
an Interior appropriations bill out of their committee that cuts nearly 
a billion dollars from the Federal land management agencies that are 
tasked with protecting these public lands.
  The concern really isn't about protecting public lands, and it is not 
really about addressing the real immigration concerns. If they were 
really, truly interested in that, they would work with us to address 
the root causes of migration.
  The most effective way to control the number of asylum-seekers 
arriving at our ports of entry is to help them stay in their home 
countries. They talk about that in some of their bills, but look at 
what they say and what they do.
  Let's focus on what they actually do. They have put forward 
appropriations bills that actually cut funding for customs and border 
officers. They cut CBP funding. They cut money for fentanyl 
interdiction. That is what they actually do.
  They may have bills with fancy titles and all this talk, but what 
happens when it comes to what they are funding? They are not funding 
with the necessary resources to address these issues.
  For example, the last time we were in the Rules Committee, they were 
cutting funding for the FBI, DEA, and law enforcement agencies that we 
need to work on these issues. They are not supporting the kind of 
cutting-edge inspection machines that we need to detect fentanyl at our 
southwestern border ports of entry, like in the President's national 
security supplemental request.
  I asked them if they were going to support the national security 
supplemental request with those provisions in it, if they were going to 
support the Democratic amendments in the border package earlier this 
year that would have made that bill better.
  It is not a great bill. They focus on that wall. They are fixated on 
that wall. It is not what we need. We have seen report after report 
that it does not work. They just keep using migrants to score political 
points. This is the third bill we have seen this year, but none of them 
are true solutions.
  If they were serious about solving the issues at our border, they 
would work with us on comprehensive legislation instead of these things 
that do absolutely nothing to fix the problem.
  The problem isn't in New York City. It is their failure to work with 
us on legislation that would solve the issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  It is time for another real-time fact check, Mr. Speaker. Homeland FY 
2024 increased funding for border agents, $496 million for 22,000 new 
Border Patrol agents. That is the highest ever funded.
  It is rich when I hear my colleagues from across the aisle talk about 
bills that are named one thing and do another. This is from a party 
that hung their entire term on the Inflation Reduction Act, which 
neither reduced inflation nor helped the economy. They later said that 
it was about preventing global warming. Again, it is rich coming from a 
party that often misnames their key legislation.
  Let's talk about sanctuary cities because there is one thing that we 
can do. We can end sanctuary city policies. For years, Democrats have 
criticized House Republicans and President Trump for wanting to secure 
our border and protect our communities. They criticize us when we say 
that. When the crisis comes to their own backyard instead of a small 
rural town on the southern border, when it comes to their sanctuary 
cities, Democrats are the first ones to declare an emergency.
  Look at Martha's Vineyard. When Ron DeSantis sent a few illegal 
immigrants to Martha's Vineyard, it took those woke yuppies less than 
12 hours to call the National Guard to remove the illegal immigrants. I 
am willing to bet there were more ``Hate has no home here'' signs in 
the pristine, well-manicured yards at Martha's Vineyard

[[Page H5949]]

than actual illegal immigrants, but they still called the National 
Guard to remove those immigrants from Martha's Vineyard.
  Don't just take my word for it. Take New York City Mayor Eric Adams'. 
Over 110,000 migrants have reached New York City. Mayor Adams decried: 
``The national government has turned its back on New York City.''
  When illegal migrants showed up in Massachusetts, Governor Maura 
Healey declared a state of emergency and said the quiet part out loud: 
``Massachusetts has stepped up to address what sadly has been a Federal 
crisis of inaction that is many years in the making.''

  One thing is clear. Even Democrats now, in their sanctuary cities, 
are realizing that Biden has created this border crisis.
  Democrats have ignored it for years. Republicans, thankfully, are 
finally stepping up and leading where they failed.
  Any of my friends from across the aisle who want to help us, if they 
want to end this crisis, can vote for the rule today and vote for the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Langworthy), my good friend.
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
for yielding the time.
  Mr. Reschenthaler talked about sanctuary policies. That is really at 
the root of what we are talking about here today, these so-called 
sanctuary policies of President Biden and Governor Kathy Hochul in New 
York and Mayor Eric Adams, who refuse to pull those sanctuary cities 
back. These policies have failed, and the American people are paying 
the consequences.
  Millions of illegal immigrants have flooded across our border since 
President Biden took office. His administration has refused to even 
acknowledge the crisis that has unfolded.
  Two years ago, it was only the communities along our southern border 
that seemed to almost exclusively carry this burden for this self-
inflicted humanitarian crisis. Now, that burden is shared by cities, 
towns, and villages as far north as my own State of New York, where 
communities in my own district, very far from the southern border, in 
upstate New York, have declared a state of emergency as their limited 
resources are stretched to the breaking point to handle the influx of 
illegal immigrants.
  Now, here we are, with thousands of migrant families, including 
children, shivering in tent cities at Floyd Bennett Field in Staten 
Island in New York City.
  Mr. Speaker, moving forward, I hope my Democratic colleagues will 
think twice before accusing House Republicans of cruelty, callousness, 
or inhumanity when it comes to securing our border and fixing our 
broken immigration system.
  Opening our borders to human traffickers and drug cartels, cramming 
migrant families into broken-down motels and freezing tent cities, and 
failing to account for 85,000 unaccompanied minors is the textbook 
definition of cruel, callous, and inhumane.
  No longer will we allow this administration to divert and squander 
Federal resources, including our public lands, to shore up a crisis of 
their own making.
  The solution to this crisis before us is extremely simple: Secure our 
border and uphold our immigration laws. Stop the invasion that has 
inundated the southern border and created a crisis in cities and towns 
across this country.
  I strongly support this underlying legislation to end the Biden 
administration's encampments on America's public lands and hold this 
administration and those in our States and cities who have promoted so-
called sanctuary policies accountable.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include 
in the Record a letter of support for proposed section 1071, CFPB rule, 
which highlights the benefits of collecting lending demographic data 
for small farmers and farmers of color.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
                                                November 27, 2023.
     Support for CFPB Section 1071 Rule and Opposition to 
         Congressional Review Act to Overturn 1071 Rule
     Hon. Mike Johnson,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Democratic Leader of the House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: We, the 84 
     undersigned organizations, write to express strong support 
     for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)'s Section 
     1071 rule on Small Business Lending Data Collection under the 
     Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and also to express strong 
     opposition to any Congressional Review Act resolutions that 
     would overturn CFPB Rule 1071.
       Section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act amended the Equal Credit 
     Opportunity Act (ECOA) to require financial institutions to 
     compile, maintain, and submit to the Bureau certain data on 
     applications for credit for all defined small businesses, 
     including women and minority-owned small businesses. To be 
     clear, Section 1071 is not optional--it is legally required 
     by Dodd-Frank. CFPB's regulatory updates are designed to 
     implement section 1071 as intended by Congress, and our 
     organizations strongly support this effort.
       The CFPB's regulatory updates are common sense efforts to 
     improve the public's understanding of the impacts of lending, 
     including agricultural lending, on-the-ground, and ultimately 
     inform policy that is good for farmers, consumers, and our 
     food and farm systems.


                 RULE 1071 IS PRO-FARMER AND PRO-MARKET

       The Section 1071 rule is pro-farmer. Young, beginning, and 
     small farmers have consistently demanded more transparent and 
     fair markets. Having accurate and public data concerning the 
     demographics primarily served by agricultural lenders will 
     help farmers and consumers make better-informed financial 
     decisions.
       The Section 1071 rule is pro-market. The data required by 
     Section 1071 will help lenders identify unmet credit needs 
     and expand to new markets, especially in underserved 
     communities. The rule contains no mechanism to penalize 
     lenders based on the demographic data reported. Collecting 
     loan applicant demographics is not new to the vast majority 
     of lenders covered by this rule and many Farm Credit System 
     lenders already collect home loan borrower demographics as 
     required under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act.


               WHY AGRICULTURAL LENDING DATA IS CRITICAL

       Creating effective and fair policy requires data. To help 
     ensure collection of more robust data, it is critical that 
     agricultural lenders--including those regulated by the Farm 
     Credit Administration, whose mission is to ``ensure that Farm 
     Credit System institutions and Farmer Mac are safe, sound, 
     and dependable sources of credit and related services for all 
     creditworthy and eligible persons in agriculture and rural 
     America--participate in demographic reporting.
       Two Government Accountability Office reports support the 
     application of Section 1071 to agricultural lending: 
     Agricultural Lending: Information on Credit and Outreach to 
     Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers is Limited, and 
     Fair Lending: Data Limitations and the Fragmented U.S. 
     Financial Regulatory Structure Challenge Federal Oversight 
     and Enforcement Efforts, which note that ``Congress should 
     consider requiring additional data collection and reporting 
     for non-mortgage loans.''
       Transparent demographic data from agricultural lenders may 
     provide insight on such trends as the dramatic decline of 
     Black representation in farming and farmland ownership, as 
     chronicled in several government records:
       Federal Register announcement in Section 1002.104(A), ``the 
     share of minority representation in farming, particularly 
     that of Black farmers, has declined sharply over the last 100 
     years.'' The precipitous decline is due in-part to historical 
     lack of access to credit for Black farmers from agricultural 
     lenders. Yet, the absence of data collection requirements 
     make evaluation challenging in the extreme.
       Census Bureau 2019; USDA 2019: 90 percent of land 
     accumulated by Black Farmers has been lost, and even though 
     Black, Indigenous and other People of Color represent nearly 
     one-quarter of the U.S. population, they operate less than 5 
     percent of the nation's declining number of farms, and 
     cultivate less than 1 percent of its farmland.
       Additionally, we also oppose H.R. 2423, the Farm Credit 
     Administration Independent Authority Act, which would exempt 
     the Farm Credit Administration from the CFPB Section 1071 
     rule.


                               CONCLUSION

       The undersigned organizations urge you to support the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's strong support for the 
     Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)'s Section 1071 
     rule on Small Business Lending Data Collection under the 
     Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and also to express strong 
     opposition to any Congressional Review Act resolutions that 
     would overturn CFPB Rule 1071.
           Sincerely,


                         NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

       American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
       Americans for Financial Reform
       Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment
       CDFI Coalition
       Center for Responsible Lending & Self-Help

[[Page H5950]]

       Consumer Federation of America
       Farm Aid
       Farms to Grow, Inc.
       Fair Food Network
       Food Animal Concerns Trust
       Food Culture Collective
       Friends of the Earth
       HEAL (Health, Environment, Agriculture, Labor) Food 
     Alliance
       Health Care Without Harm
       Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
       Jubilee Justice
       National Association for Latino Community Asset Builders
       National Black Food and Justice Alliance
       National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC)
       National Family Farm Coalition
       National LGBTQ Task Force
       National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
       National Young Farmers Coalition
       North American Marine Alliance
       Not Our Farm
       Opportunity Finance Network
       Organic Farming Research Foundation
       Pesticide Action Network North America
       Real Food Media
       Revolving Door Project
       Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA (RAFI-USA)
       Rural Coalition
       Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems Funders
       Union of Concerned Scientists
       Women, Food and Agriculture Network (WFAN)
       Woodstock Institute


                   Local/State/Regional Organizations

                                Alabama

       Alabama State Association of Cooperatives


                               California

       Avila Fund
       California FarmLink
       CAMEO (California Association for Micro Enterprise 
     Opportunity)
       Community Alliance with Family Farmers
       Feed Black Futures
       Rise Economy (formerly California Reinvestment Coalition)
       San Diego Food System Alliance
       Urban Tilth


                                Colorado

       4th World Farm
       Nourish Colorado


                                Delaware

       Delaware Community Reinvestment Action Council, Inc.


                                Florida

       Farmworker Association of Florida
       Florida Veterans for Common Sense


                                Georgia

       Georgia Watch


                                Illinois

       Chicago Food Policy Action Council
       Illinois Food Justice Alliance


                                  Iowa

       Climate Land Leaders


                                 Maine

       Coastal Enterprises, Inc.
       Maine Organic' Farmers and Gardeners Association


                             Massachusetts

       HCC Consulting
       Springfield Food Policy Council


                               Minnesota

       Appetite For Change
       African Immigrant Farmers Alliance
       Bois Forte Food Sovereignty Group (Bois Forte Tribal 
     Communities at Nett Lake and Lake Vermilion Reservations)
       Climate Land Leaders
       Global GreenBiz
       Midwest Farmers of Color Collective
       Minnesota Farmers' Market Association
       Multicultural Kids Network
       Land Stewardship Project
       Renewing the Countryside
       Roots Return Heritage Farm LLC


                               New Mexico

       Agri-Cultura Cooperative Network
       La Semilla Food Center


                             North Carolina

       American Indian Mothers Inc
       Carolina Farm Stewardship Association
       Hawk's Nest Healing Gardens, LLC
       Toxic Free North Carolina


                                New York

       Empire Justice Center
       Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (NOFA-NY)
       Our Core Inc.
       Soul Fire Farm


                                  Ohio

       Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association


                              Pennsylvania

       Pasa Sustainable Agriculture


                             South Carolina

       Carolina Farm Stewardship Association


                              South Dakota

       Climate Land Leaders


                                Virginia

       Cultivate Charlottesville


                             West Virginia

       Partner Community Capital


                               Wisconsin

       Climate Land Leaders
       Midwest Farmers of Color Collective

  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This letter tells us a lot about how Democrats see the issues in 
rural America, how Democrats see the issues affecting our small 
businesses, our women-owned businesses, and our minority-owned 
businesses. It is one of wanting to make sure that the playing field is 
level, that there is transparency and fairness at the same time that we 
use the market to build up thriving communities.
  This is a letter that comes from ranchers, farmers, cooperatives, our 
rural areas. It is signed by dozens of organizations, and they read 
that the section 1071 rule is profarmer. Young, beginning, and small 
farmers have consistently demanded more transparent and fair markets.
  Having accurate and public data will help farmers and consumers make 
better-informed financial decisions.
  For some reason, the Republicans don't want to make sure that we have 
access to this data. What are they hiding? If big banks aren't serving 
our rural farmers, let's find that out.
  This isn't just about that. This is about promarket. They say section 
1071 is promarket. The data required by section 1071 will help lenders 
identify unmet credit needs and expand new markets.
  This is important if we are going to grow the middle class. Once 
again, I was a small business owner. I had a woman-owned business. I 
went and sought credit. I filled out those forms. It wasn't that hard. 
I wrote down that, yes, I am a woman-owned business, and, yes, I am a 
minority-owned business. I am a Latina. I am proud of it. I am from a 
State capital, by the way, the oldest State capital in the United 
States, which is very pro-immigrant because we know of the economic 
benefits it provides.
  We know that having access to this information is good for our small 
businesses. It is good for rural America. Therefore, we are very much 
in support of this rule, despite the fact that, once again, Republicans 
want to hammer and beat up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau 
despite the great work it does for our consumers, the great work it 
does for our small businesses, the great work it does for Americans, 
which is why they support it the way they do.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of a measure that 
clearly states that the people's House will keep its solemn promise to 
American seniors and workers. We will protect and preserve Social 
Security and Medicare and fight against any cuts to these crucial 
programs that so many of our constituents depend on.
  Reaffirming our promise is more important than ever. Republicans on 
the Budget Committee today, as we speak, are holding a hearing about 
fiscal commissions that could slash Social Security and Medicare. We 
cannot allow that to happen.
  The top candidates for President in the Republican Party are also 
calling for cuts to Social Security. The House must stand against that. 
Democrats in the House will stand against that.
  Mr. 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 (Mr. Murphy). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Lee) to discuss our proposal.
  Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the 
grandmas and grandpas and moms and dads and neighbors and beloved 
community members who spent their entire lives paying into Medicare out 
of their own paychecks on the sacred promise that they could retire 
with health and dignity only to have that promise betrayed by today's 
Republican Party.
  I stand here on behalf of our aging parents and sons and daughters 
fighting mental illness, loved ones who are cancer patients and stroke 
survivors, workers injured on the job, orphaned children, and siblings 
with disabilities, whose access to food, shelter, medicine,

[[Page H5951]]

and dignified retirement depends on Social Security that Republicans 
are hellbent on tearing away.

                              {time}  1300

  In Pennsylvania alone, 2.8 million folks depend on Medicare--227,727 
in Allegheny County--and 2.9 million depend on Social Security--nearly 
150,000 in my district alone. Every one of them deserves to retire in 
dignity with access to healthcare. Every one of them deserves a 
Congress where every Member has the decency to honor that sacred 
promise not to leave our families behind at the hardest moments of 
their lives.
  The reality is that just about every American agrees, no matter where 
we come from, how we vote, or what our skin color is--we all deserve 
those things.
  The Republican Party, bought out by greedy CEOs, billionaires, and 
lobbyists, have always been terrified of that reality. They are so 
terrified that instead of facing it they have chosen to lie, scapegoat, 
and defraud even the folks who elected them, assuming we are too 
foolish to see what is going on.
  Let me break it down. First, Republicans passed tax handouts for 
their filthy rich donors promising a trickle-down miracle that never 
has and will never happen from Reaganomics to the Trump tax scam.
  When their tax scam causes the economy to slow and deficits to grow, 
they refuse to correct their mistake. Instead, they blame immigrants, 
poor folks, Black folks, and Brown folks.
  Next, Republicans pretend to panic and call for devastating cuts to 
Social Security and Medicare that would force Americans to work longer 
for less and tear away their hard-earned retirement and end Medicare as 
we know it--reducing spending.
  They call for more handouts for their billionaire donors and 
corporate polluters. They hope that you will settle for tearing away 
your neighbors' lifelines to protect your own right to retire in 
dignity, forcing us to the brink of catastrophic shutdown or debt 
ceiling crisis until we clean up their mess.
  They repeat the cycle hoping enough of us will forgive and forget 
their scheme to tear away Medicare and Social Security and believe 
their lie that they were only after food assistance, healthcare, or 
housing for poor folks--not your earned benefits. The truth is that 
they always were and always will be after it all.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to 
the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania.
  Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as I speak, Republicans on the 
Budget Committee are holding a hearing to establish a death panel 
commission to gut earned benefits where their chairman called his 
party's fight to tear Social Security our generation's world war.
  At a time when the majority of Pennsylvanians say they struggle to 
afford healthcare and half are delaying getting the medical care they 
need because they can't afford it, we as Democrats have an obligation 
to fight to not only protect Social Security and Medicare but expand 
them.
  If we preserve the retirement age, increase benefits to keep up with 
inflation, expand Medicare to include vision, dental, and hearing, and 
hold Big Pharma price gougers accountable and pass Medicare for All, 
that is how we fulfill our sacred promise and move our country and our 
economy forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
we can bring up legislation that reaffirms the House of 
Representatives' commitment to protecting and strengthening Social 
Security and Medicare.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know if my colleague from Pennsylvania was 
talking about the party as in 2003 or 2023 because the last time I 
checked, the Republicans are the party that supports the guys that 
shower after work not before.
  The Chamber of Commerce has picked its side. It is with the 
Democrats. The billionaires that my friend from Pittsburgh was talking 
about--check how they are registered to vote. I am pretty sure--and I 
am willing to bet--that they all registered as Democrats, and far-left, 
extreme Democrats, by the way. All the Big Tech CEOs, Apple and Amazon, 
you name it, they are all far-left Democrats.
  So this nostalgia for the day when Republicans supported big business 
and Democrats supported the little guy, it is just that, it is 
nostalgia. It is 2023, and we need to realize the new political 
realities.
  When we are talking about numbers, I noticed that my friend from 
Pennsylvania didn't talk about the numbers relating to the destruction 
of Hamas during the over 3 minutes she had to address the Chamber. 
Let's talk about those numbers.
  Hamas has killed over 1,500 Israelis since October 7, 2023. They have 
killed over 1,500 Israelis. They have injured over 6,900. Over 230 
hostages were taken by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Over 9,500 rockets have 
been fired from Gaza toward Israel. There were 32 Americans killed and 
several Americans are still missing.
  While we are throwing out numbers, let's not forget to talk about the 
destruction Hamas has brought.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, actually the debate around Social Security, similar to 
the debate about the Consumer Protection Bureau and its regulations, 
does highlight the policies that the Democrats and Republicans pursue 
and who are the beneficiaries of those policies.
  Let's look at Social Security and what the Republican Budget 
Committee is looking at. They are looking at raising the retirement 
age. Who actually pays for that?
  When you raise the retirement age, it is going to be the janitors, 
nurses, educators, and the people doing the hard work in our 
manufacturing plants that are going to be required to work longer. They 
are going to be the ones who are going to have a hard time because they 
don't have additional savings like the wealthy. Right?
  The wealthy aren't going to care about whether you raise the age to 
67, 68, or 72 because they have the assets and they are not relying on 
Social Security. It is our workers who have paid into Social Security 
who have earned it and deserve it. They deserve to receive the benefits 
that we promised them when they started working and paying into the 
system.
  What can we do to make sure that Social Security is solvent in the 
future?
  Well, Democrats have a bill that we introduced last year, and we 
supported it this year. You make sure everybody pays--no matter how 
much money you make--into the system. Right now we know that the 
wealthy stop paying into the system at about $147,000.
  Why doesn't everybody pay Social Security taxes on all their 
earnings?
  Why aren't the wealthy paying their fair share?
  That is a policy difference. It is the policy distinctions that we 
are focused on.
  Once again, Democrats are standing with working Americans who are not 
earning $200,000, $300,000, $400,000, or $1 million a year. We say you 
should pay your fair share of your Social Security taxes rather than 
doing what they want to do, which is gut benefits. When you raise the 
Social Security age, you are gutting the benefits.
  That is an example of the distinction of when you are standing with 
working Americans and when your policies that you support are 
increasing the middle class instead of standing with the wealthy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, here is another real-time fact-check for you. Obama 
under ObamaCare took $700 billion from Medicare. You tell me who is 
trying to protect Medicare and Medicaid. It certainly wasn't the Obama 
administration when they were taking billions of dollars from the fund.
  It is amazing the amount of time that my colleagues across the aisle 
talk about working families. Have they actually talked to working 
families?
  When I am in my district talking to working families, not the woke 
yuppies

[[Page H5952]]

that my friends across the aisle represent, but actually working 
Americans, they are talking about inflation. Let's look at the numbers.
  When President Biden took office, President Trump had inflation where 
it was just 1.4 percent. Since then, prices have risen by 17 percent. 
By the way, real wages are going down, hurting working families and 
working Americans.
  Prices have risen 17 percent and real wages are down. Credit card, 
auto loan, and consumer loan delinquencies are at the highest levels 
since the Great Recession. Just this morning, CBS News--the 
conservative news bash--reported that Americans need an extra $11,400 
today just to afford the basics when compared to when President Trump 
was in office.
  You tell me who is looking out for the working American. Something 
tells me it is not extreme, far-left Democrats that are looking out for 
their woke, affluent suburbs. All the while, the President has been 
misleading the American people.
  Last week, our 81-year-old leader claimed Thanksgiving dinner was the 
fourth cheapest ever on record. Of course, that was false. Maybe it is 
his age showing, I don't know, but the truth is that it was the second 
most expensive Thanksgiving dinner ever.
  If you want to talk about an all-time high, last year's inflation 
under the President's watch is an all-time high. It is clear, 
Bidenomics is broken economics. Democrats do not care about working 
Americans. Republicans do.
  Let's talk about some more Bidenomics statistics. With the economy 
adding just 1,500 jobs in October, coming in below expectations, this 
is the second worst jobs report of the Biden Presidency.
  The unemployment rate rose to 3.9 percent in October where the labor 
force participation rate actually declined. The average middle-class 
household has lost over $33,000 in real wealth in just this past year. 
That hurts people that are driving to work, driving to construction 
sites, and driving to work shifts at diners. It is not hurting the 
woke, yuppie base that the Democrats represent sitting at home on Zoom 
all day, having their EVs charging in their garage.
  The average rate for a 30-year fixed mortgage is now at the highest 
level since 2000. This is bringing a disastrous effect to the housing 
market. Homeownership has been deemed unaffordable in 99 percent of the 
country. There are 73 percent of Americans that believe the economy is 
in bad shape, and more voters trust Republicans over Democrats to 
handle inflation, according to a recent AP-NORC poll.
  Mr. Speaker, 58 percent of the Americans believe the economy is 
getting worse, and 69 percent believe the country is on the wrong 
track, according to an Economist/YouGov poll. That is not exactly a 
far-right polling outfit.

  Half of Americans say their financial situation is worsening, 
according to a recent Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll. Biden's approval rating 
on the economy is at just 32 percent, the lowest of his Presidency, 
according to CNBC's All-American Economic Survey.
  It is very clear that the American people know that Biden and far-
left Democrats are hurting not only their job prospects, not only their 
ability to afford a home, but the entire economy and their ability just 
to afford the basics.
  Mr. Speaker, I question any time a Democrat tells me they are 
watching out for the working American.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we need to remember why we faced inflation in 
the first place. We need to remember that this country and the world 
faced down a pandemic that threatened to destroy our economy.
  Let's go back to those dark days when we moved from the Trump 
Presidency to the Biden Presidency. Our businesses were closed. Our 
Main Streets were going to fall apart. Our city, local, and State 
governments were worried about whether they would be able to keep 
people on the payroll.
  The Democrats passed the American Rescue Plan, and we did rescue the 
economy indeed. I go to my working-class district because my entire 
district is like that. That is my family. I come from those roots. I 
speak to those people on a regular basis.
  Every town I go into, I look at the number of loans, the PPP, the 
Restaurant Revitalization Fund, the Shuttered Venue Operators Grant, 
and they are open now. Those communities are thriving because of the 
work we did. That was not the reason we saw inflation.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an 
article from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.

             [From the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City]

How Much Have Record Corporate Profits Contributed to Recent Inflation?

   (By Andrew Glover, Jose Mustre-del-Rio, and Alice von Ende-Becker)

       Inflation ended 2021 at a 40-year high and rose further in 
     2022. Policymakers, politicians, and pundits have considered 
     many possible explanations for this burst of inflation, from 
     transitory supply chain disruptions to ``wage-price spirals'' 
     to mismatches between demand and supply. However, one 
     potential explanation that has received significant public 
     attention is ``greedfiation''--that is, the idea that firms 
     are capitalizing on their market power by raising their 
     prices higher and faster than the growth in their production 
     costs. This idea is well captured by Robert Reich's May 17, 
     2022, testimony to Congress, during which he said, ``When 
     corporations are so flush with cash, why are they raising 
     prices'' They are not raising prices solely because of the 
     increasing costs of supplies and components and of labor. . . 
     . Corporations enjoying record profits in a healthy 
     competitive economy would absorb these costs. Why? Because 
     they can. And they can because they don't face meaningful 
     competition'' (p. 2).
       Although higher corporate profits have received attention 
     recently, profits and inflation do not have a direct 
     accounting relationship. However, inflation is directly 
     affected by growth in the markup--the ratio between the price 
     a firm charges and the firm's current marginal cost of 
     production. Inflation in a firm's prices is therefore the sum 
     of the growth in the marginal cost of production and the 
     growth in the markup.
       Economic theory posits many ways that markups can change 
     over time. For example, markups could change due to a 
     decrease in the price sensitivity of consumer demand or an 
     increase in monopoly power that arises from reduced 
     competition. However, markups could also rise if current 
     marginal costs become less important for a firm's pricing, 
     either because current firms expect higher costs to replace 
     current inventory as it is sold or because firms expect 
     higher marginal costs in the future and want to smooth out 
     price increases over time rather than raise prices sharply 
     and abruptly. In this article, we estimate the 2021 growth 
     rate of markups and discuss likely contributors to this 
     growth. We find evidence that markup growth was a major 
     contributor to inflation in 2021. Specifically, markups grew 
     by 3.4 percent over the year, whereas inflation, as measured 
     by the price index for Personal Consumption Expenditures 
     (PCE), was 5.8 percent, suggesting that markups could account 
     for more than half of 2021 inflation. Such high markup growth 
     is especially striking given that markup growth contributed 
     almost nothing to inflation in the decade leading up to the 
     COVID-19 pandemic.
       Although our estimate suggests that markup growth was a 
     major contributor to annual inflation in 2021, it does not 
     tell us why markups grew so rapidly. We present evidence that 
     the timing and cross-industry patterns of markup growth are 
     more consistent with firms raising prices in anticipation of 
     future cost increases, rather than an increase in monopoly 
     power or higher demand. First, the timing of markup growth in 
     2021, as well as earlier in the pandemic, does not line up 
     neatly with the spike in inflation during the second half of 
     2021. Instead, the largest growth in markups occurred in 2020 
     and the first quarter of 2021; in the second half of 2021, 
     markups actually declined. Therefore, inflation cannot be 
     explained by a persistent increase in market power after the 
     pandemic. Second, if monopolists raising prices in the face 
     of higher demand were driving markup growth, we would expect 
     firms with larger increases in current demand to have 
     accordingly larger markups. Instead, markup growth was 
     similar across industries that experienced very different 
     levels of demand (and inflation) in 2021. This finding 
     suggests that an increase in markups may provide policymakers 
     with a signal of future inflationary pressures, especially if 
     it occurs during periods where expectations of near-term 
     future inflation are heightened.
       Section I reviews the microeconomic theory of price setting 
     by monopolists while holding constant marginal costs and 
     demand. Section II presents our estimates of markup growth 
     across time and industries. Section III extends the theory of 
     pricing to one where firms must consider future marginal 
     costs when setting current prices and demonstrates how an 
     increase in expected future marginal costs translates to 
     inflation

[[Page H5953]]

     through markup growth in the present followed by negative 
     markup growth in the future.


 1. Prices, Costs, and Markups in the Model of Monopolistic Competition

       Rising monopoly power among firms has been a popular 
     explanation for the 2021 spike in inflation, buttressed by a 
     coincident rise in corporate profits. To help illustrate the 
     mechanisms through which monopoly power can raise markups, 
     Figure 1 first shows how markups are determined in a standard 
     monopolistic model of price setting holding a firm's marginal 
     costs fixed. The solid blue line shows that consumers' 
     maximum willingness to pay (that is, their demand for the 
     good) declines as they purchase more of a monopolistic firm's 
     product. The dashed blue line shows that the marginal revenue 
     a monopolist receives from each additional sale declines as 
     they increase output. Finally, the solid green line plots the 
     marginal cost of producing each unit sold.
       A profit-maximizing monopolist chooses the price that 
     equates marginal revenue to marginal cost, so any change in 
     price would lead to a loss in profits. For example, in Figure 
     1, if the monopolist sets a unit price equal to $4, consumers 
     will demand (and purchase) three units. Because the 
     monopolist's production cost is only $ 1 per unit, they earn 
     $3 profit per unit for a total profit of $9 and a markup 
     equal to 4 ($4/$1 = 4). This price equates marginal revenue 
     to marginal cost and maximizes the monopolist's profit. If 
     the monopolist decides to lower the price to $3, they would 
     sell four units instead of three, but their profit per unit 
     would fall to $2 for a total profit of $8 instead of $9 and a 
     markup of 3. Similarly, if the monopolist raised the price to 
     $5, then they would make $4 profit on each unit but sell only 
     two units at that price for a total profit of $8 and a markup 
     of 5.
       Figures 2 and 3 illustrate how markups and costs jointly 
     determine inflation by showing how the monopolist will 
     increase their price in response to either an increase in the 
     marginal cost or an increase in demand. Figure 2 shows that 
     an increase in the firm's marginal cost from $1 to $5--
     represented by the solid orange line--will raise the unit 
     price by $2, from $4 to $6. 1n this case, the firm's markup 
     declines from 4 to 1.2 ($6/$5 = 1.2); even though the price 
     level increases, it is driven by the increase in marginal 
     cost and markup growth is actually negative. In contrast, 
     Figure 3 shows that an increase in demand--represented by the 
     solid orange line--causes prices to grow from $4 to $5. In 
     this case, the arm's markup increases from 4 to 5, so the 
     increase in the price level in Figure 3 is entirely due to 
     the firm's markup growing.
       In summary, changes in firms' current marginal costs or 
     demand for their products can contribute to inflation as 
     firms adjust their prices to maximize profits. The total 
     change in prices can always be understood as the combined 
     effects of changes in the marginal cost of production and 
     changes in the firm's markup. Our simple model shows that 
     markups may or may not contribute to inflation: when a 
     monopolist's marginal costs increase, markups decline, but 
     when demand for a monopolist's products increases, markups 
     rise.


                    II. Estimates of Average Markups

       Although the figures in the previous section provide simple 
     illustrations of arm markups, measuring the growth rate of 
     these markups in the real economy can be challenging. First, 
     data on a firm's marginal cost of production are not 
     available; instead, we can only observe measures of total 
     costs in nominal values. Second, data collected at the firm 
     level do not report the prices that firms charge or the 
     quantity of goods they produce, but rather their total sales.
       To overcome these challenges, we estimate the growth rate 
     in markups by assuming that firms equate their marginal cost 
     to a constant proportion of the production costs that they 
     can control--specifically, variable costs, which include 
     things like labor and utilities, rather than fixed costs, 
     such as depreciation on previously installed capital. This 
     assumption allows us to proxy a firm's markup growth using 
     the growth in its ratio of sales to variable costs. We 
     estimate markup growth using Compustat data, which consist of 
     quarterly data at the firm level for publicly traded 
     corporations in the United States. These data have been used 
     widely to estimate markups (as in De Loecker, Eeckhout, and 
     Unger 2020) and have two main benefits. First, they allow us 
     to estimate markups at the firm level and then calculate 
     averages at different sectoral levels of aggregation. Second, 
     they include a direct estimate of total variable costs, 
     ``cost of goods sold,'' which is our basis for estimating 
     markups.
       The blue line in Chart 1 plots average markup growth across 
     all firms from 2011 through 2021, weighted by share of total 
     sales. The chart shows that after remaining roughly flat in 
     the decade preceding the pandemic and falling by 0.5 percent 
     in 2020, markups grew by about 3.4 percent in 2021. Ibis is 
     more than half of the 5.8 percent PCE inflation rate, 
     suggesting markup growth played a major role for inflation in 
     2021. Furthermore, the burst in markup growth seen in 2021 
     stands in marked contrast to the decade before the pandemic, 
     when marginal cost growth drove inflation and markup growth 
     averaged only 0.42 percent (less than one-third of average 
     PCE inflation over that period).
       Looking at the timing of markup growth tells a more nuanced 
     story. Chart 2 shows quarterly markup growth plotted against 
     quarterly PCE inflation. We estimate that quarterly markup 
     growth was highest in 2021:Ql, when it neared 16 percent 
     (annualized), while quarterly inflation was only 4.6 percent. 
     Furthermore, markups fell in the second half of 2021, while 
     inflation accelerated. This suggests that the source of high 
     markup growth in recent years was not a steady increase in 
     monopoly power.
       As shown in the previous section, changes in demand can 
     also drive markup growth, even if monopoly power is 
     unchanged. However, if high-frequency changes in demand were 
     generating fluctuations in markup growth, then we would 
     expect industries with higher demand to have both higher 
     inflation and higher markup growth than those with less 
     demand.
       We check for this pattern using the industrial detail of 
     our Compustat markup measure. Goods and services experienced 
     different rates of inflation in 2020 and 2021, as shown in 
     the first three bars in Chart 3. Durable goods inflation 
     spiked sharply to nearly 11 percent, nondurable goods 
     inflation grew by 7.4 percent, and services inflation 
     remained relatively low at 4.3 percent. These differences 
     likely reflect shifts in relative demand in the face of 
     ongoing COVID-19 risk in 2021, as spending on durable goods 
     has a relatively low risk of infection compared with spending 
     on services. However, the green bars in Chart 3 show that the 
     pattern for markup growth in roughly comparable industries 
     was much more similar. Markups grew only slightly more in 
     manufacturing (2.90 percent) than in services (2.20 percent), 
     and retail saw the smallest growth in markups (0.33 percent). 
     The similarity of markup growth despite large differences in 
     inflation speaks against a simple demand-based explanation in 
     which markups drove inflation most for industries that 
     experienced the strongest increase in relative demand due to 
     the pandemic.


  III. Higher Future Marginal Costs Increase Markups When Pricing is 
                                Dynamic

       Although markup growth was high in 2021, the evidence from 
     the previous section casts doubt on the simple explanation of 
     ``greedflation,'' understood as either an increase in 
     monopoly power or firms using existing power to take 
     advantage of high demand. Instead, this evidence may be 
     consistent with an alternative explanation: that firms are 
     raising markups in the present to smooth price increases they 
     expect in the future. Indeed, both the hump shape of 
     aggregate markup growth and similarity in markup growth 
     across industries arise naturally in standard macroeconomic 
     models where firms adjust their prices slowly over time and 
     expect high marginal costs in the near-term future.
       To understand how markups can rise in response to an 
     increase in firms' expectations of higher marginal costs in 
     the future, we extend our theory of price setting to one with 
     multiple periods of production and sales as well as 
     ``sticky'' prices. We consider a firm that has a marginal 
     cost of $1 at the beginning of the year (as in Figure 1) but 
     expects their marginal cost to rise to $5 in the next year 
     (as in Figure 2). However, we assume that this firm will only 
     set its price once for both years, either because it is 
     costly to adjust prices or because consumers dislike frequent 
     price changes. Of course, this illustrative model cannot also 
     generate inflation after markups have fallen, as we see in 
     the data, but we extend it to a longer horizon below.
       Figure 4 demonstrates profits as the firm considers prices 
     between $4 (which maximizes profits given a constant marginal 
     cost of $1) and $6 (which maximizes profits given a constant 
     marginal cost of $5). Using either price of $4 or $6 for both 
     periods generates a total profit of $6. However, if the firm 
     sets a price of $5, then profits rise to $8. Effectively, 
     this balances the average of the marginal cost between the 
     two years to the marginal revenue, thereby maximizing total 
     profit. Markups are therefore higher initially--when the 
     marginal cost is $1, firms set a price of $5, leading to a 
     first-year markup of 5 rather than 4. However, markups fall 
     in the second year--when marginal costs rise to $5 and the 
     price remains at $5, then the markup is equal to 1. In other 
     words, the firm just breaks even on the last unit sold in the 
     second year.
       Although this simple example illustrates how higher future 
     marginal costs can increase inflation in the present via 
     markups, it is much simpler than the dynamic equilibrium 
     models used by policymakers, which allow firms to engage in 
     many periods of price setting, households to make consumption 
     and labor supply decisions (which determine firms' demand and 
     wage costs), and monetary policy to change interest rates in 
     response to inflation (which affects household spending). 
     Figure 5 demonstrates inflation (blue line) and markup growth 
     (green line) from such a model in which prices, output, and 
     interest rates are all determined jointly in equilibrium 
     following a monetary policy rule that leads the central bank 
     to raise interest rates when inflation rises. In this 
     simulation, firms realize that marginal costs will rise by 10 
     percent in a year and then shrink slowly, returning to normal 
     after two years. In anticipation, they begin raising prices 
     immediately, which translates into markup growth and 
     inflation. Furthermore, in the model, the increase in 
     inflation elicits an increase in interest rates by the 
     central bank, which in turn lowers employment and reduces 
     marginal costs (through lower real wages). The result is that 
     markup growth initially accounts for more than 100

[[Page H5954]]

     percent of inflation, which is why the green line is 
     initially above the blue line. Once marginal costs rise, 
     however, inflation is higher than markup growth, and 
     eventually markups begin to shrink. The qualitative pattern 
     of markup growth's contribution to inflation is remarkably 
     similar to the quarterly pattern of inflation and markup 
     growth in 2021. Furthermore, the initial markup-driven 
     increase in inflation foreshadows the later increase in 
     marginal costs and signals a persistent rise in inflation. 
     Overall, this example's accordance with the quarterly data 
     from 2021 suggests that the large contribution of markups to 
     inflation in 2021 may have been a harbinger of the continued 
     inflation observed in 2022.


                               Conclusion

       As inflation has remained stubbornly high, economists and 
     policymakers have sought to better understand the 
     contribution to price gains from direct increases in marginal 
     costs versus increases in firms' markups. We show that markup 
     growth likely contributed more than 50 percent to inflation 
     in 2021, a substantially higher contribution than during the 
     preceding decade. However, the markup itself is determined by 
     a host of unobservable factors, including changes in demand 
     but also changes in firms' expectations of future marginal 
     costs. The decline in markups during the first half of 2022--
     even as inflation remained high--is consistent with firms 
     having raised markups during 2021 in anticipation of future 
     cost pressures. Furthermore, the growth in markups was 
     similar across industries with very different relative demand 
     and inflation rates in 2021, which is also consistent with an 
     aggregate increase in expected future marginal costs. We 
     conclude that an increase in markups likely provides a signal 
     that price setters expect persistent increases in their 
     future costs of production.

  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, this is an article titled: ``How 
Much Have Record Corporate Profits Contributed to Recent Inflation?''
  Firms raised markups to 2021 in anticipation of future cost pressures 
contributing to about 60 percent. Every American knows that record 
profits added to inflation. They just keep on trying to blame it on the 
fact that we kept our small businesses open. That is not the case. We 
made sure that people did not get thrown out of their homes.
  It is the big corporations that they protect with their policies, and 
they want to make sure that they can cheat on their taxes. They bring 
that up every little while. He brought up issues with regard to Israel. 
Well, you know, they didn't allow a clean bill to come to the floor 
because they wanted to make sure that tax cheats could continue 
cheating on their taxes. They wanted to cut that funding.

                              {time}  1315

  We know that those kinds of things hurt America. We know that part of 
the reason for inflation was because of Putin's war, Putin's invasion 
of Ukraine, and what happened to the markets from that.
  On that side of the aisle, we have the Putin protectors who are 
fighting back and do not want to provide any resources to Ukraine.
  So, the majority should not start talking to me about inflation when 
the majority's policies are continuing to add to those problems.
  You might know, Mr. Speaker, that neither this Congress nor this 
Presidency controls interest rates. That is the Federal Reserve. We do 
not control that. The President does not control that.
  I would love to see interest rates come down because they do impact 
jobs. The fact that we had the lowest job growth of the Biden 
administration tells you--oh, my God, you had to compare it just to the 
Biden administration because the job growth has been phenomenal under 
this administration. It has been phenomenal based on the policies of 
what we did in the last Congress. We have added so many jobs.
  We are seeing that the Inflation Reduction Act is bringing down 
inflation. Inflation is lower now than it was 1 year ago. Fact-check 
that. Yes, indeed, we have brought down inflation.
  We are creating good manufacturing jobs. In New Mexico, we are 
creating manufacturing jobs. We are now manufacturing wind turbines. We 
are manufacturing solar facilities. We are manufacturing more now in 
New Mexico than we have done in the past.
  Those are the kinds of things that are being created with the 
policies that Democrats supported and were signed into law last 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for another real-time fact check. By the way, 
let's not conflate interest rates with inflation. They are two totally 
separate things.
  Let's talk about inflation. My friend from New Mexico said that 
inflation started during COVID. We know that when President Trump left 
office, inflation was at 1.4 percent. In June 2022, when Biden was in 
office, it was 9.1 percent. That is almost a record high. Yes, 
inflation is slightly less than it was, coming down from the all-time 
high.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, facts don't care about your feelings, and 
they don't care about your political persuasion. Try arguing the 
difference between 9.1 percent inflation and 1.4 percent inflation. 
Good luck with that.
  We all know who is to blame: Biden and far-left, radical Democrats.
  Also, to talk about how great the economy is and unemployment, the 
unemployment rate actually rose in October to 3.9 percent while the 
labor force participation rate declined. It is actually worse than 3.9 
percent if you are reading into that statistic, Mr. Speaker.
  Again, this is quite amazing. Not only has President Biden totally 
botched the economy and Bidenomics, but he has repeatedly botched 
foreign affairs. Obama's own Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, once said 
that Joe Biden has managed to get every single foreign policy decision 
wrong in his entire career.
  One of the big mistakes that Biden made, when we talk about foreign 
affairs, was when he decided to delist the Houthis as a terrorist 
organization. Here is a quick history lesson. In 2021, due to pressure 
from the Iranian regime, and for whatever reason the Biden 
administration is fixated on appeasing the Iranian regime, the Iranian 
regime was putting pressure on the Biden administration to delist the 
Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization. For those who don't know, 
the Houthis are an Iranian-backed proxy group that wreaks havoc across 
the Middle East.
  In recent weeks, the Houthis have carried out drone and missile 
attacks against Israel. They have attacked and seized commercial 
vessels in the Red Sea. They have fired rockets at the U.S. Navy, 
including the USS Mason, the USS Thomas Hudner, and the USS Kearny.
  It is past time for the Biden administration to get tough with Iran 
and designate the Houthis as the foreign terrorist organization that 
they are.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to 
close.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the comment about not talking about 
interest rates. The gentleman talked about mortgage rates, and mortgage 
rates are tied to the Federal Reserve. So, once again, understanding 
how our economy works and which agency and entity has control over that 
is very important.
  I also want to talk about the idea of who is trusted. He mentioned 
some polls with regard to who is trusted on the economy. The reality is 
that we are right now in the people's House. We are the Representatives 
who are closest to the people and who are out there meeting with them. 
This is what the Founders intended. When the Founders created the House 
of Representatives, they wanted to make sure that we were a miniature 
of America and that we were in constant communication.
  I know that that is what we do. I know that is what my colleagues do 
and what I do. We go out and talk with them. We listen to their stories 
and bring them back. We decide, based on what we hear, what we are 
going to prioritize.
  I like the fact that Democrats, that my party, those of us on this 
side of the aisle, go out to listen and come back and push for policies 
that are going to lower costs, like the Inflation Reduction Act did 
where we lowered the cost of prescription drugs and where we made sure 
that nobody is going to pay more than $35 a month for insulin. People 
have been asking for that.
  For the first time, we are going to negotiate with Big Pharma to 
bring down those costs where there is going to be a $2,000 out-of-
pocket limit for

[[Page H5955]]

prescription drugs. These are important ways in which we are lowering 
costs.

  We are lowering costs by making sure that we are providing homeowners 
and renters with the ability to lower their energy costs, whether that 
is putting in renewable energy facilities and solar panels or 
insulating homes.
  Those are the kinds of things that my colleagues across the aisle, my 
good friends, might not understand, like how important it is to 
insulate your house. I am from where it is cold, so getting those 
insulation credits is important. It lowers costs.
  Because of this work that we have done, I know that there is an 
aggregated poll out that points to the fact that Democrat incumbents 
are trusted in the House at a rate that is so further beyond our 
Republicans. They are underwater by 14 points. Their own constituents 
know that they are not fighting for their economic benefit.
  Nevertheless, what we have seen this year is chaos and dysfunction 
take over the House under Republican leadership. While Democrats have 
been ready to put people over politics and deliver for America through 
bipartisan legislation, our colleagues across the aisle continue to 
introduce bills like we are considering today that focus more on 
culture wars and nonsolutions.
  Today, we have an immigration bill that does not address the root 
causes of migration, offer solutions for our broken systems, or provide 
any resources to help the U.S. citizenship or immigration system or 
Customs and Border Patrol address an increase in migrants.
  In this bill, they might talk about a lot of things, but that is not 
what this bill does. This bill does not address any of those key 
issues. Instead, it restricts the Departments of the Interior and 
Agriculture's ability to manage their lands. These agencies are in 
charge of managing our public lands, and we need to let them do their 
job.
  We have a bill that fails to help our small businesses even when we 
know that SBA low-interest loans have helped thousands of entrepreneurs 
grow their businesses and the economy. Instead, they would seek to make 
those Federal loans less transparent and would cripple the Consumer 
Financial Protection Bureau's ability to address disparities in 
lending.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that, once again, I am here on the House 
floor explaining to my friends across the aisle that there is a 
difference between interest rates and inflation. They are two separate 
things. They shouldn't be conflated. I am shocked that I have to 
explain this to Members who are elected to Congress. It is quite 
amazing.
  It is very clear, the difference between inflation and interest 
rates.
  There is another thing that is very clear that Democrats don't seem 
to understand, and that is that President Biden's foreign policy agenda 
benefits our foreign adversaries and not the American people. From the 
failed withdrawal from Afghanistan to the $6 billion in sanctions 
relief to Iran, to the draining of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve and 
also the fast-tracking of Putin's Nord Stream 2 project, it has been 
disastrous.
  Mr. Speaker, look at the invasion of Ukraine, a terrorist safe haven 
in Afghanistan, an emboldened China, and a destabilized Middle East. 
This legislation before us will protect our servicemembers in the 
Middle East. It will place additional pressure on the Iranian regime.
  Additionally, we have another Biden-fueled disaster right here at 
home at our southern border. The White House now wants to exacerbate 
this crisis further by placing tent cities on Federal lands.
  In Pennsylvania, our Commonwealth is home to several national parks, 
including the Flight 93 National Memorial, Fort Necessity National 
Battlefield, and Friendship Hill National Historic Site, all of which 
are in my congressional district. These are places for Americans and 
their families, not camps for those who broke our laws and are here 
illegally.
  The underlying legislation will protect our national parks from the 
Biden administration's and the Democrats' radical, far-left immigration 
policies.
  Finally, the Biden administration's attempt to burden our local 
lenders with extra costs would do irreparable harm to our Nation's 33 
million small businesses. During a time when Bidenomics is failing the 
American people, it is critical we support efforts to make the American 
Dream more achievable, not insert partisan politics into small business 
lending. That is why the House will nullify this far-left, radical 
rulemaking by the Biden administration and Democrats.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous 
question and ``yes'' on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as 
follows:

   An Amendment to H. Res. 891 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New 
                                 Mexico

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of 
     Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social 
     Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or 
     their respective designees.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 178.

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. 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 213, 
nays 205, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 678]

                               YEAS--213

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Gimenez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     James
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kiley
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Maloy
     Mann
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)

[[Page H5956]]


     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NAYS--205

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amo
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Landsman
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Nickel
     Norcross
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peltola
     Perez
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Santos
       

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Dean (PA)
     DesJarlais
     Gaetz
     Garcia (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Kelly (PA)
     LaHood
     Lee (NV)
     Mast
     Pelosi
     Phillips
     Sarbanes
     Scott, Austin
     Smucker
     Wexton

                              {time}  1356

  Mses. CLARK of Massachusetts and MANNING, and Mr. ESPAILLAT changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. POSEY changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On November 29, 2023, on page H5956, in the first column, the 
following appeared: 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. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on 
the passage of the resolution.
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: So the previous 
question was ordered. The result of the vote was announced as 
above recorded. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the 
resolution.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212, 
noes 205, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 679]

                               AYES--212

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Gimenez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     James
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kiley
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Maloy
     Mann
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NOES--205

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amo
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Landsman
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Nickel
     Norcross
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peltola
     Perez
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

     Santos
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Biggs
     Courtney
     Dean (PA)
     DelBene
     DesJarlais
     Fallon
     Gaetz
     Jackson (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Kelly (PA)
     Lee (NV)
     Mast
     Pelosi
     Phillips
     Sarbanes
     Scott, Austin

                              {time}  1403

  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.
  Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``AYE'' on rollcall No. 679.
  Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have 
voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 679.
  Stated against:

[[Page H5957]]

  

  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Speaker, today I missed rollcall No. 679 on the 
Rule (H. Res. 891 ) for three bills under consideration on the floor 
this week:
  H.R. 5283, ``Protecting our Communities from Failure to Secure the 
Border Act; H.R. 5961, ``No Funds for Iranian Terrorism Act''; and S.J. 
Res. 32, ``Providing for congressional disapproval, relating to ``Small 
Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act''.
  Had I recorded my vote, I would have voted ``no'' on the Rule, H. 
Res. 891.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would 
have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 678 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 679.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. LEE of Nevada. Mr. Speaker, during Roll Call votes on the motion 
on ordering the previous question (H. Res. 891) and H. Res. 891, the 
Rule for H.R. 5283, H.R. 5961, and S.J. Res. 32, my vote was not 
recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 
No. 678 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 679.

                          ____________________