[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.
____________________