Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4346) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes, and providing for proceedings during the period from August 1, 2022, through September 12, 2022.

Sadly, though, this is called the CHIPS and Science Act, it left out the calculation of math for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

America is applauding. For once they will not be stopped and stymied by a supply chain that says: no technology, no cars, stay forever without wheels when you have a driving business.

This bill is expected to create 100,000 jobs. I am excited, in particular, about the addition of NASA's reauthorization and to specifically note that NASA's Johnson Space Center will be doing the Orion program funded, Gateway program funded, Extravehicular Activity in Human Surface Mobility funded. Orion, Gateway and EHP funded. These are individual programs that we funded for one of the most prominent centers there.

In addition, we are going to move to manufacturing chips in this Nation, including Houston.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo has precious metals. Where do they want to send them?

To the United States of America.

They want us to produce. They want us to be able to transport.

Out of this bill with the amazing amount of research coming forward in science it is going to be a testimony.

I want to pay tribute to Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, the chairwoman who guided this with the kind of calm and expertise that has brought us to this point.

Texas is proud, the Nation is proud, and 100,000 jobs and over $3 billion that will be provided in energy alone, $10.9 billion for the Office of Science, $7.5 billion for FY22, a 6 percent annual increase.

This is a jobs bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4346, the CHIPS and Science Act, which comes as a result of bipartisan bicameral work following the passage of the Competes Act and the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.

CHIPS' authorization was part of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. Which authorized the Department of Commerce (DOC), Department of Defense (DoD), and Department of State (DOS) to engage in activities to develop onshore domestic manufacturing of semiconductors critical to U.S. competitiveness and national security.

This bill is expected to create nearly 100,000 new American jobs.

And provisions in the Bill are reflecting my legislation.

I am proud to say that many of those jobs would be housed in Texas.

Currently, more than 30,000 Texans work in the manufacturing of semiconductor chips. In fact, for the last 11 years, my state has been the country's number one top exporter of this product.

There are opportunities in addressing the necessity of finding and refining of rare earth-critical mineral elements that are needed to manufacture technology in every aspect of the economy.

I will be hosting a major energy discussion and a series of meetings in September and October to focus on closing the gap between U.S. demand for these materials and the supply available to us in the global marketplace.

I believe that our nation's independence and competitiveness is on the line if we do not solve this problem.

On September 12, 1962, President Kennedy gave a speech at Rice University that outlined the task he was given to the nation's best and brightest scientists by saying:

``We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills because that challenge is one that we're willing to accept. One we are unwilling to postpone.''

Our nation has never measured itself by the progress of other nations, but by the boundlessness of our imagination that we work to make real.

Before the race to the moon, the United States had conquered other science, engineering, and technological challenges like the building of the Panama Canal and human flight.

We know the fruit of this labor is greater knowledge, innovations, the unlocking of new knowledge, and the dispelling or confirmation of scientific proofs.

As a member of the Bipartisan Space and Aeronautics Caucus, I am in support of the NASA Authorization that is included in this bill.

I am a sponsor H.R. 5260, the Advancing Human Spaceflight Act of 2021, a bill establishing programs and policies pertaining to human presence in space.

This bill would establish a program to develop next-generation space suits and associated technologies, establish an outpost in orbit around the Moon as described in this bill, and submit a plan for achieving a power supply on the Moon.

The bill declares that it is U.S. policy to continuously maintain the capability for a continuous human presence in low-Earth orbit through and beyond the useful life of the International Space Station (ISS) and that such capability shall maintain U.S. global leadership and relations with partners and allies, contribute to the general welfare of the United States, and leverage commercial capabilities to promote affordability so as not to preclude a robust portfolio of other human space exploration activities.

I am also a cosponsor of H.R. 869, the Research Investment to Spark the Economy Act of 2021 or the RISE Act of 2021, a bill that authorizes the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, the Interior, Health and Human Services, and Transportation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Science Foundation, and Environmental Protection Agency to provide support for research regarding COVID-19 (i.e., coronavirus disease 2019) or research disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The bill provides supplemental funding to extend the duration of a grant to a research institution, national laboratory, or individual that was awarded prior to the enactment of this bill, or to expand the purposes of such a grant as specified; issue awards to research the effects of the current pandemic and potential future pandemics; and provide flexibility on awards to account for facility closures or other limitations during the COVID-19 public health emergency.

H.R. 4346, the CHIPS and Science Act bill before us today, includes National Aeronautics and Space Administration authorization for the:

Artemis Moon Program;

Moon-to-Mars Exploration Campaign, including the Artemis program to return America to the Moon;

Maintenance of the International Space Station.

Extension of authorization for the International Space Station through 2030 and establishes priorities for research, as required to bring Americans to Mars;

Extend NASA Enhanced Use Lease Authority. Enables NASA to lease underutilized;

Prioritization through 2032, and to use lease revenues to address facility maintenance while reducing taxpayer costs;

goal of including Earth science observations and the search for life beyond Earth;

Advancement of U.S. Aeronautics Leadership

Enhancement of NASA Technology, Infrastructure, and Workforce; and

Focused attention that ensures Planetary Defense against meteors and large asteroids.

I have long held an intense interest in the Nation's premier space exploration agency, first as a member of the House Science Committee and now as a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

From space exploration to climate change the work of Congress is needed now more than ever before.

I have for several Congresses offered an amendment to the NDAA to provide Congress with a report on the issue of space debris, which jeopardizes human space exploration.

These objects are a product of earlier space exploration when there were only a few nations capable of low earth orbit space flight.

Today, public-private partnerships and collaboration is bringing the commercial sector into space exploration.

The space debris amendment brings valuable insight into the challenges, dangers, and opportunities present by addressing space debris moving over 17,000 miles an hour and the real changes of debris disabling or damaging manmade space exploration or development efforts.

President Kennedy knew what was on the line if our nation did not dominate the space race.

Because he understood what was at stake he set the nation's sights on people walking on the surface of the moon, and to safely return home required technology, materials, metals, food preservation, clothing, and instruments that had not been invented at the time of his speech this was a monumental challenge that captivated and motivated Americans--All Americans to find within themselves the talent, courage, and fortitude needed to make his words our nation's greatest scientific accomplishment.

He said his challenge was an act of faith and vision because no one know what would come from the effort of accomplishing the challenge of conquering space.

The speech at Rice University is located in the city of Houston because of the concentration of engineering, researchers, and academic institutions doing cutting-edge work in the energy sector of the economy.

First established as the Manned Spacecraft Center (MSC) in 1961, it was later named the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC) in honor of the late President.

The JSC is responsible for the design, development, and operation of human space flight.

For more than four decades, JSC has been the world leader in human space flight operations for NASA.

The critical thing to understand about what JSC means to human space flight is to understand the importance of a critical mass of experts that are working collaboratively from the training of astronauts to all aspects of the support during missions.

The Center's famed Mission Control Center, or MCC, has been the operational hub of every American human space mission for over 40 years since Gemini IV.

The MCC manages all activity onboard the space station and directs all space shuttle missions, including station assembly flights and Hubble Space Telescope servicing. Construction of the control center began in late 1962.

In addition to conducting mission simulations and operations with flight controllers, space was allocated for key NASA engineering and scientific personnel along with representatives of the major contractors to support each mission.

This increased presence strengthened the problem-solving capabilities of the MCC team.

Today, JCS is comprised of a complex of 100 buildings constructed on 1,620 acres that is known as Space City.

Houston is where the Johnson Space Center was born and remains to this day--a place of boundless imagination in the pursuit of new horizons in space exploration.

There are approximately 3,200 civil servants, including 110 astronauts, employed at Johnson Space Center, and a contract workforce of over 15,000 are the people who prepare people for space missions.

This bill is a matter of national pride, national economic innovation, and most importantly, national security.

I want to note for Congress and the nation that the JSC with continuing to serve a vital role in the next chapter of space exploration for our nation.

Several essential NASA programs are authorized and fully funded separately under this authorization bill.

The bill provides funding for each of the essential tasks that NASA has for the JSC:

the Orion Gateway Program is funded separately,

Extravehicular Activity is funded separately, and

Human Surface Mobility (EHP) Program is funded separately.

The authorization language in this bill makes clear that the Orion Gateway Program, Extravehicular Activity, and Human Surface Mobility (EHP) Program are assigned to the Johnson Space Center.

Language in this bill also provides clarity that all new lunar and Mars samples are under the purview of the JSC.

This is a wise decision given that the JSC maintains over 5 decades of experience and expertise in the stewardship and curation of all current collections of NASA-held Astro-materials.

All U.S. government or U.S. government contracted services involving extraterrestrial material or Astro-materials such as, but not limited to rocks, dust, minerals, meteorites, regolith, ices, organic matter, gasses, and atoms, and including samples collected in space, on other solar system bodies, and on earth will be curated and managed by Johnson Space Center.

NASA's Johnson Space Center shall curate and manage all NASA-held Astro-material sample collections, including providing loans of Astro- material specimens, review of the proposed use, approval of research investigations, education, and public display.

These are NASA Johnson Space Center Human Exploration Programs that are a part of Moon to Mars or Artemis, all funded separately in this bill. They are:

Orion Program;

Gateway Program--Referred to in the bill as ``an outpost in orbit around the moon'';

Extravehicular Activity and Human Surface Mobility (EHP) Program--in the bill ``Spacesuits'' are called out and state any other elements needed to meet the requirement of the Moon to Mars Program; and

Orion, Gateway, and EHP (suits and Mobile systems, rovers), all are critical Programs.

Just as the moon project was a massive endeavor that would touch nearly every aspect of our nation's scientific community and efforts so will the work outlined by this legislation.

The CHIPS Act would invest $52 billion in domestic semiconductor chip manufacturing, and various vital science initiatives to return the United States to its role as the preeminent leader in science and modernization.

These initiatives include efforts to expand diversity and equity in STEM fields by combatting sexual harassment in science workplaces, investing in minority-serving institutions, and expanding fellowship and scholarship opportunities for women in STEM.

It would also focus on scientific initiatives for biological and environmental research that would accelerate the growth of clean energy commercialization and development across the country.

Everything from helium conservation to nuclear physics, to biological threat preparedness, is included in this bill.

Additionally, the CHIPS and Science Act are authorizations for incredibly important innovations happening at NASA.

It would authorize the Artemis Moon Program to work towards the goal of returning American astronauts to the moon, including sending the first woman and person of color.

In addition to resuming goals of lunar landings, the CHIPS and Science Act would prioritize the research necessary to continue the Orion program and bring Americans to Mars.

Several essential NASA programs are authorized and fully funded separately under this authorization bill.

The Orion Program gateway program is funded separately; Extravehicular Activity is funded separately and Human Surface Mobility (EHP) Program is funded separately. The authorization language in this bill makes clear that the Orion Gateway Program, Extravehicular Activity, and Human Surface Mobility (EHP) Program are assigned to the Johnson Space Center.

Language in this bill also provides clarification that all new lunar and Mars samples are the responsibility of the Johnson Space Center.

The other priority I believe should have been included in this bill is a clarification that NASA's Johnson Space Center with over 5 decades of experience and expertise in the stewardship and curation of all current collections of NASA-held Astro-materials should continue in this role for the materials that will be brought back from the moon and Mars to earth for study.

Further, it would have served the mission to make sure that all U.S. government or U.S. government contracted services involving extraterrestrial material or Astro-materials such as but not limited to rocks, dust, minerals, meteorites, regolith, ices, organic matter, gasses, and atoms and including samples collected in space, on other solar systems bodies and earth should be curated and managed by Johnson Space Center.

NASA's Johnson Space Center should be charged with the management of all NASA-held Astro-material sample collections, including providing loans of Astro-material specimens, review of the proposed use, approval of research investigations, education, and public display.

I will support the bill, and pledge to continue to work with my colleagues in the House and Members of the Senate to make sure that the JSC's role in the next chapter of our nation's space exploration includes management of materials returned to earth for study.

In addition to its many improvements to STEM workforce growth and scientific research and development, this bill has a particular focus on America's need for a robust push in semiconductor chip manufacturing.

Much of the funding in H.R. 4346 would be dedicated to building the capacity of the American semiconductor chip industry.

This bill would set aside resources designed to incentivize the construction of potentially 7 to 10 domestic semiconductor fabrication plants.

These plants would be responsible for manufacturing the core of all our modern electronics.

Cars, cell phones, air conditioning units, microwave ovens, medical tools, and laptops all rely on semiconductor chips to transport, connect, feed, and support the American public.

The CHIPS Act would ensure that American consumers retain access to these products during times of international instability.

The United States' ability to manufacture semiconductor chips has been on a steady decline for decades.

In 1990, the U.S. met roughly 40 percent of the world's semiconductor chip capacity.

In 2020, that fell to just 12 percent.

East Asian countries like China, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan are now home to nearly 80 percent of global chip fabrication.

Some of America's largest tech firms, including Google, Apple, and Amazon, rely on a single Taiwanese manufacturer, TSMC, for nearly 90 percent of their chip production.

I have long advanced that chip manufacturing should be domestic because of the critical importance to telecommunication, medical, transportation, national defense, industrial control systems, and financial systems.

The COVID-19 pandemic made evident the limitations of domestic manufacturing capacity in the United States and vulnerabilities in global supply chains.

During the pandemic, our healthcare centers, schools, and other vital industries struggled to import the technological goods they needed to battle the virus, educate our children, and keep our economy running.

Thousands of American people died in hospital beds while hospitals struggled to obtain additional ventilators, oxygen monitors and other necessary medical equipment--medical equipment that rely on semiconductor chips to work.

Delays in supply chains and manufacturing capabilities undoubtedly wasted time and cost countless lives.

This cannot happen again.

The 21st-century world is only able to stay upright through a careful scaffolding of electronic and computer products.

There are some products that we must maintain the ability to produce upon demand to meet domestic need.

With Russia at war with Ukraine and an uncertain future for Chinese and Taiwanese relations, it is more imperative than ever that the manufacturing of semiconductor chips returns to American soil, American businesses, and American control.

With the passage of the CHIPS Act, the United States would rise again to its status as a world leader in the manufacturing of semiconductor chips.

Doing so is an economic and national security necessity.

For years, the United States has neglected to invest in semiconductor manufacturing. Meanwhile, China has invested $150 billion to build its domestic capacity.

If we do not invest in the future of American innovation and excellence now, we are sure to fall behind our East Asian competitors in the future--at the expense of the American people.

In addition to the provision of funding for manufacturing facilities, the CHIPS Act includes about $100 billion for the research and development of secure semiconductors and secure microelectronic supply chains.

This would include the creation of a Subcommittee on Microelectronics Leadership which would be tasked with developing a national strategy for the creation of a robust microelectronics industry in the United States and setting priorities for the maintenance of American leadership in advanced chip design and production.

This is our opportunity to secure the economic and national security of our nation.

It is our opportunity to provide much-needed jobs and industry.

It is our opportunity to return the United States of America to its position of prominence and example as a world leader in innovation and manufacturing.

Made in America is good for business, it's good for security, and it's good for our people.

That is why I wholeheartedly support the passage of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022.

I include in the Record a list of NASA bills I have sponsored and cosponsored.

1. H.R. 5250--117th Congress (2021-2022) Advancing Human

Spaceflight Act of 2021 Sponsor: Rep. Garcia, Sylvia R. [D-

TX-29] (Introduced 09/14/2021) Cosponsors: (2) Committees:

House--Science, Space, and Technology Latest Action: House--

09/14/2021 Referred to the Subcommittee on Space and

Aeronautics.

2. H.R. 869--117th Congress (2021-2022) RISE Act of 2021

Sponsor: Rep. DeGette, Diana [D-CO-1] (Introduced 02/05/2021)

Cosponsors: (178) Committees: House--Science, Space, and

Technology; Agriculture; Armed Services; Education and Labor;

Energy and Commerce; Natural Resources; Transportation and

Infrastructure Latest Action: House--03/03/2021 Referred to

the Subcommittee for Indigenous Peoples of the United States.

3. H.R. 7308--116th Congress (2019-2020) RISE Act Sponsor:

Rep. DeGette, Diana [D-CO-1] (Introduced 06/24/2020)

Cosponsors: (147) Committees: House--Science, Space, and

Technology; Agriculture; Armed Services; Education and Labor;

Energy and Commerce; Natural Resources Latest Action: House--

08/13/2020 Referred to the Subcommittee on Biotechnology,

Horticulture, and Research.

4. H.R. 4304--116th Congress (2019-2020) NASA Enhanced Use

Lease Authority Act of 2019 Sponsor: Rep. Palazzo, Steven M.

[R-MS-4] (Introduced 09/12/2019) Cosponsors: (40) Committees:

House--Science, Space, and Technology Latest Action: House--

09/12/2019 Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology.

5. H.R. 1865--116th Congress (2019-2020) Further

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 Sponsor: Rep. Pascrell,

Bill, Jr. [D-NJ-9] (Introduced 03/25/2019) Cosponsors: (304)

Committees: House--Financial Services Committee Print: H.Prt.

116-44 Latest Action: 12/20/2019 Became Public Law No: 116-

94.

6. H.R. 1396--116th Congress (2019-2020) Hidden Figures

Congressional Gold Medal Act Sponsor: Rep. Johnson, Eddie

Bernice [D-TX-30] (Introduced 02/27/2019) Cosponsors: (314)

Committees: House--Financial Services; House Administration

Latest Action: 11/08/2019 Became Public Law No: 116-68.

7. H.R. 255--111th Congress (2009-2010) NASA 50th

Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee,

Sheila [D-TX-18] (Introduced 01/07/2009) Cosponsors: (2)

Committees: House--Financial Services Latest Action: House--

01/07/2009 Referred to the House Committee on Financial

Services.

8. H.R. 6455--110th Congress (2007-2008) NASA 50th

Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee,

Sheila [D-TX-18] (Introduced 07/10/2008) Cosponsors: (1)

Committees: House--Financial Services Latest Action: Senate--

07/16/2008 Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on

Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar

No. 885.

9. H. Res. 1315--110th Congress (2007-2008) Commemorating

the 50th Anniversary of the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration. Sponsor: Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10]

(Introduced 06/26/2008) Cosponsors: (44) Committees: House--

Science and Technology Latest Action: House--07/10/2008

Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without

objection.

10. H. Amdt. 1096--110th Congress (2007-2008) Description:

Amendment to clarify that the NASA Outreach and Technology

Assistance Program will include small, minority-owned, and

women-owned businesses. It would also give preference, in

selection for the program, to socially and economically

disadvantaged small business concerns, small business

concerns owned and controlled by service-disabled veterans,

and HUBZone small business concerns. Amends Bill: H.R. 6063

Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] (Offered 06/12/

2008) Latest Action: 06/12/08 On agreeing to the Jackson-Lee

(TX) amendment (Ao12) Agreed to by voice vote.

11. H. Amdt. 691--110th Congress (2007-2008) Description:

Amendment to prohibit the funds made available in this Act

may be used in violation of Subtitle A of Title VIII

(International Space Station Independent Safety Taskforce) of

the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. Amends Bill: H.R. 3093

Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] (Offered 07/26/

2007) Latest Action: 07/26/07 On agreeing to the Jackson Lee

(TX) amendment (A049) Agreed to by voice vote.

12. H.R. 2750--110th Congress (2007-2008) NASA 50th

Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee,

Sheila [D-TX-18] (Introduced 06/15/2007) Cosponsors: (296)

Committees: House--Financial Services, Senate--Banking,

Housing, and Urban Affairs Latest

Action: Senate--08/03/2007 Read twice and referred to the

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

13. H.R. 2500--110th Congress (2007-2008) NASA and JPL 50th

Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee,

Sheila [D-TX-18] (Introduced 05/24/2007) Cosponsors: (1)

Committees: House--Financial Services Latest Action: House--

05/24/2007 Referred to the House Committee on Financial

Services.

14. H. Res. 446--110th Congress (2007-2008) Honoring the

life and accomplishments of Astronaut Walter Marty Schirra

and expressing condolences on his passing. Sponsor: Rep.

Bilbray, Brian P. [R-CA-50] (Introduced 05/24/2007)

Cosponsors: (7) Committees: House--Science and Technology

Latest Action: House--06/06/2007 Motion to reconsider laid on

the table Agreed to without objection.

15. H. Res. 316--110th Congress (2007-2008) Recognizing the

accomplishments of Roger D. Kornberg, Andrew Fire, Craig

Mello, John C. Mather, and George F. Smoot for being awarded

Nobel Prizes in the fields of chemistry, physiology or

medicine, and physics.

Sponsor: Rep. McNerney, Jerry [D-CA-11] (Introduced 04/18/

2007) Cosponsors: (9) Committees: House--Science and

Technology Latest Action: House--05/01/2007 Motion to

reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

16. H.R. 363--110th Congress (2007-2008) Sowing the Seeds

Through Science and Engineering Research Act Sponsor: Rep.

Gordon, Bart [D-TN-6] (Introduced 01/10/2007) Cosponsors:

(18) Committees: House--Science and Technology, Senate--

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Report: H.

Rept. 110-39 Latest Action: Senate--04/25/2007 Received in

the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

17. H. Con. Res. 448--109th Congress (2005-2006) Commending

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on the

completion of the Space Shuttle's second Return-to-Flight

mission. Sponsor: Rep. Paul, Ron [R-TX-14] (Introduced 07/13/

2006) Cosponsors: (34) Committees: House--Science Latest

Action: Senate--07/21/2006 Message on Senate action sent to

the House.

18. H.R. 5356--109th Congress (2005-2006) Research for

Competitiveness Act Sponsor: Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-

10] (Introduced 05/11/2006) Cosponsors: (31) Committees:

House--Science Committee Report: H. Rept. 109-525 Latest

Action: House--06/22/2006 Placed on the Union Calendar,

Calendar No. 294.

19. H. Con. Res. 366--109th Congress (2005-2006) To

congratulate the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration on the 25th anniversary of the first flight of

the Space Transportation System, to honor Commander John

Young and the Pilot Robert Crippen, who flew Space Shuttle

Columbia on April 12-14, 1981, on its first orbital test

flight, and to commend the men and women of the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration and all those supporting

America's space program for their accomplishments and their

role in inspiring the American people. Sponsor: Rep. Calvert,

Ken [RCA-44] (Introduced 03/29/2006) Cosponsors: (52)

Committees: House--Science Latest Action: Senate--04/07/2006

Message on Senate action sent to the House.

20. H. Amdt. 512--109th Congress (2005-2006) Description:

Amendment requires the NASA Administrator to transmit to

Congress a plan describing steps to be taken by NASA to

protect the employment status of NASA employees who raise or

have raised concerns about a potentially catastrophic risk to

health or safety. Amends Bill: H.R. 3070 Sponsor: Rep.

Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] (Offered 07/22/2005) Latest

Action: 07/22/05 On agreeing to the Jackson Lee (TX)

amendment (A005) Agreed to by voice vote.

21. H. Amdt. 510--109th Congress (2005-2006) Amends Bill:

H.R. 3070 Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18]

(Offered 07/22/2005) Latest Action: 07/22/05 By unanimous

consent, the Jackson Lee (TX) amendment was withdrawn.

22. H.R. 3250--109th Congress (2005-2006) National

Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of

2005 Sponsor: Rep. Gordon, Bart [D-TN-6] (Introduced 07/12/

2005) Cosponsors: (19) Committees: House--Science Latest

Action: House--07/27/2005 Referred to the Subcommittee on

Space and Aeronautics. Notes: For further action, see S.

1281, which became Public Law 109-155 on 12/30/2005.

23. H. Amdt. 284--109th Congress (2005-2006) Amends Bill:

H.R. 2862 Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18]

(Offered 06/15/2005) Latest Action: 06/15/05 On agreeing to

the Jackson Lee (TX) amendment (A037) Agreed to by voice

vote.

24. H. Amdt. 254--109th Congress (2005-2006) Amends Bill:

H.R. 2862 Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18]

(Offered 06/14/2005) Latest Action: 06/14/05 By unanimous

consent, the Jackson Lee (TX) amendment was withdrawn.

25. H.R. 68--109th Congress (2005-2006) NASA and JPL 50th

Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act Sponsor: Rep. Culberson,

John Abney [R-TX-7] (Introduced 01/04/2005) Cosponsors:

(290) Committees: House--Financial Services; Ways and

Means, Senate--Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

Committee Report: H. Rept. 109-133 Latest Action: Senate--

07/13/2005 Received in the Senate and Read twice and

referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban

Affairs.

26. H.R. 4881--108th Congress (2003-2004) NASA and JPL 50th

Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act Sponsor: Rep. Culberson,

John Abney [R-TX-7] (Introduced 07/21/2004) Cosponsors: (347)

Committees: House--Financial Services Latest Action: House--

08/03/2004 Referred to the Subcommittee on Domestic and

International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology.

27. H. Res. 723--108th Congress (2003-2004) Recognizing the

35th anniversary of the Apollo 11 lunar landing, and for

other purposes. Sponsor: Rep. Hall, Ralph M. [R-TX-4]

(Introduced 07/19/2004) Cosponsors: (27) Committees: House--

Science Latest Action: House--07/21/2004 Motion to reconsider

laid on the table Agreed to without objection.

28. H.R. 4522--108th Congress (2003-2004) International

Space Station Independent Safety Commission Act of 2004

Sponsor: Rep. Jackson Lee, Sheila [D-TX-18] (Introduced 06/

08/2004) Cosponsors: (0) Committees: House--Science Latest

Action: House--06/14/2004 Referred to the Subcommittee on

Space and Aeronautics.

29. H. Res. 550--108th Congress (2003-2004) Expressing the

sense of the House of Representatives relating to the

extraordinary contributions resulting from the Hubble Space

Telescope to scientific research and education, and to the

need to reconsider future service missions to the Hubble

Space Telescope. Sponsor: Rep. Udall, Mark [D-CO-2]

(Introduced 03/03/2004) Cosponsors: (77) Committees: House--

Science Latest Action: House--03/03/2004 Referred to the

House Committee on Science.

30. H. Res. 490--108th Congress (2003-2004) Recognizing and

commending the achievements of the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and

Cornell University in conducting the Mars Exploration Rover

mission, and recognizing the importance of space exploration.

Sponsor: Rep. Dreier, David [R-CA-26] (Introduced 01/20/2004)

Cosponsors: (31) Committees: House--Science Latest Action:

House--01/21/2004 Motion to reconsider laid on the table

Agreed to without objection.)

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1289 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1289, providing for a motion by the chair of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4346. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Finally, the rule provides standard floor recess instructions for the August district work period from August 1 to September 12.

Madam Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a historic package of long-overdue legislative actions that will strengthen our economy and reignite our competitiveness on the global stage.

Throughout our work in Congress, we have focused on fighting for and uplifting families, on creating opportunity and setting our community on a path toward a brighter future. This historic investment will deliver on the promise of a better tomorrow.

It means jobs, real jobs, that will keep families together and ensure our children can access the American Dream.

It means lower costs for essential, everyday items that will lessen the burden on families.

It means America will strengthen its competitiveness against countries like China and reestablish its place as the global leader in innovation.

It will reaffirm our leadership around the world by strengthening diplomacy, promoting human rights, and bolstering economic engagement.

I am proud that this bill is a result of comprehensive bicameral and bipartisan negotiations, which I had the privilege of participating in as a member of the Conference Committee.

America has always been known as the land of opportunity, creativity, and entrepreneurship. We are the Nation that took to the stars and landed a man on the Moon, the birthplace of transformational inventions like the internet, and home to some of the world's greatest scientists. Technological advancement is in our DNA, and we need to continue fostering its long-term growth. That is why I am particularly pleased this legislation includes steps to enhance regional innovation, which has long been one of my top priorities and opens the doors for limitless potential.

Federal investment in regional innovation hubs will uplift communities across the country that are already leading the way in high-tech advancements, communities like my home of Rochester, which is already doing groundbreaking work in this field.

No longer will Silicon Valley be the only area synonymous with innovation. With this legislation, we are making investments in collaboration across public, private, education, and civic sectors that will be game changers for communities across the country, transforming underutilized cities into crucibles of America's global competitiveness.

Furthermore, this legislation addresses our deep concern that America is losing its competitive edge in semiconductor manufacturing, a clear economic and national security concern. Over the past few years, China has invested more than $150 billion to build their domestic chip manufacturing capacity, while we have invested nothing. We have fallen behind. But not anymore.

The CHIPS and Science Act will bolster our domestic supply of semiconductors, putting us back on pace to match China while reducing our reliance on foreign supply chains and lowering costs for everyday families.

This legislation harnesses the spirit of ingenuity that has always guided America and turns the page on a new chapter in our history, one that creates economic opportunity for communities across the country and ensures our Nation is back on track as the global leader we have always been.

I extend a heartfelt thank-you to all of my colleagues who have helped make this legislation a reality. It has been an honor to collaborate with so many leaders, particularly the Honorable Chairwoman Johnson of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee on regional innovation provisions.

As a member of the USICA-COMPETES conference process, I encountered a strong commitment from fellow conferees and staff to ensure this final package reflects the needs of the entire country and provides a meaningful path forward for innovation and growth.

No legislation is perfect, but this package sends a clear message to the world that when it comes to our global competitiveness, we will set aside our differences and get the job done.

Today, we are taking decisive action to ensure our leadership remains strong, our economy remains robust, and our future remains bright.

Yesterday afternoon, this legislation received broad bipartisan support on the Senate floor, with 17 Republican Senators voting for final passage. I hope we see similar outcomes when it comes to the House floor.

I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in proudly supporting this important legislation. I look forward to seeing it passed in short order.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, let me just reflect on what my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee said about a single industry. It is hard to imagine any industry in the United States--in the world, in fact--that doesn't utilize semiconductor chips. It is in everything. Chips run everything.

Whether it is your cell phone, your laptop, or your automobile, it really doesn't matter. Children's toys have chips in them. The fact is, we have lost our competitive edge. That is what this is all about. This affects industry in the United States.

Take, for example, General Motors announcing they have 95,000 automobiles awaiting chips. Do you want to increase the supply of goods to people and help bring down inflation? This is about increasing the supply of goods all over the United States in every single industry.

In my home in Rochester, New York, where we specialize in optics, centuries of optics and photonic integrated circuits, everything is involved with chips. We can no longer wait.

By the way, in addition to our economic security, our national security depends on this. If you want to not only compete with China economically but from a national security and defense perspective, we must do this.

This isn't about a single industry; it is about every industry.

It is like saying water is used to drink; water is in everything. We could not be clearer about this. This is about our competitiveness on every level, and it is about the future.

It is about our children. It is about our grandchildren. It is about what kind of country we want to have and what kind of economy we want to have. Are we going to be in a position to defend the United States' democracy and our interests around the world?

I appreciate my friend's comments, but I have to say it would be narrow-minded to look at this and simply say it affects the semiconductor industry only. It affects everything.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), my very good friend and another distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised by the conversation here, it is as though we don't recognize the importance of semiconductors and the entire semiconductor supply chain to literally every activity we are involved in. Whether transportation, as I have already mentioned, or communications or medical devices or our satellite technology, literally every single thing we do depends on it.

The notion that we should somehow stand pat and allow other nations to invest and to build their supply chains to me is hard to accept, hard to understand, hard to process. If we do nothing over the next decade, China will be producing about 40 percent of semiconductor chips worldwide, the United States about 6 percent. If we want to put our reliance in the hands of foreign suppliers and foreign supply chains, I guess we can do nothing. But we need to invest, and that is why this bill is critical. That is why I suspect it received the support of 17 Republican Senators on the Senate floor yesterday. This is critical.

As I said earlier, China is investing $150 billion in their semiconductor supply chain, and this is not just chips; it is chips, it is substrates, it is packaging, it is assembly. It is the whole thing. Anytime there is a gap in a supply chain, we rely on those who fill that gap for us.

Do we want to be in a position where our economic fortunes are dependent on foreign competitors for a critical part of our supply chain?

Do we want to put our national security in jeopardy because those things which we need to be safe and secure are dependent upon foreign supply chains?

I don't think so. I don't think that is what the American public wants. And, frankly, I am glad to have this debate because I think it shows a divide. I think it shows a contrast between what we want to do to invest in not only this generation but next generations.

There are also a couple of other observations I will make. One is about just market forces and just allowing things to happen according to the market. While working on this bill--I talked a lot earlier, and I will continue to talk about regional innovation, but I also want to talk about Federal investment, two points.

The first I would make is: R&D investment by the United States Government has fallen to 0.61 percent of U.S. GDP. That is the lowest mark since the 1950s. At one point we were investing nearly 2 percent of GDP in research and development.

What came out of things like our investments in the space program are material sciences and advances, advances in telecommunications, advances in weather satellites, advances in so many different things, even fuel cell development. All those things came out of an R&D investment which we haven't kept pace with.

We talk about our competitiveness with China. This is vital to our national interest. I can't think of many things that are more vital to our national interest over the next several decades.

When you look at where we are making those investments, right now, if you are privileged to live in one of the five innovation hubs--such as Boston; the Silicon Valley; in Seattle, Washington; in Austin, Texas-- those areas account for about 90 percent of private investment, and venture capitalists will spend in those areas.

But what about the rest of the country?

I live in a place, Rochester, New York, which is home to the Rochester Institute of Technology and the University of Rochester, both great research facilities. There was a book recently written, ``Jump- Starting America'' by Simon Johnson and Jonathan Gruber, two MIT economists. They rated 130 different communities across the country that are falling behind, despite the fact that they have great innovation ecosystems, but they lack investment.

The public investment which we are talking about making through our regional innovation hubs will drive private investment because private investment will partner with the investments being made by the U.S. Government in our innovation, in our entrepreneurship, in advancing our interests for the long term.

We have to do this. This isn't something that we could decide to wait a

year or two years. This is an investment we must make now. We have fallen behind, and we can no longer afford to fall further behind.

Our economic interests, our national security interests are intimately tied together, and that is why this legislation is so vital, and that is why I hope we will have strong bipartisan support when the bill comes to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will admit that I am a little mystified about what I am hearing here, so let me try to unpack a lot of what I just heard.

In the first instance, a number of my colleagues have repeatedly suggested that regular order in the House is for the authorization of legislation and then appropriators identify how much money can be spent on those things authorized under law.

That is exactly what we are doing here today. We are authorizing much under the CHIPS legislation. That is the way we do regular order. It is identifying those things that we authorize

and then identifying the dollars necessary to meet that authorization.

But let me just read from the actual report on the bill: Division A, CHIPS Act of 2022, Section 101, Short Title: This Act may be cited as the CHIPS Act of 2022. Section 102, Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors for America Fund, the CHIPS fund. In order to support the rapid implementation of the semiconductor provisions included in the fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, the NDAA, this division would provide $52.7 billion in emergency supplemental appropriations.

This bill has nearly $53 billion included in it, $50 billion allocated over 5 years for the CHIPS for America Fund.

I could go on and list it, but this is exactly what we are talking about: Authorization to move forward over the next several years to strengthen American competitiveness in the world.

By the way, it is not just all of the industries I talked about. Try to order a refrigerator without a chip in it or a microwave oven or a dishwasher or a TV or a laptop or a cell phone or--I could go on and on all day. There isn't a consumer device, there is not an electronic device--even farm equipment. Everything we use has chips in it. We are falling behind the Chinese and others, and we are relying on foreign investment and foreign supply chain.

I can't imagine something more American than passing this bill. This is vital to our national interest. This is one of the most vital things we will do.

So we are following in the way that we are supposed to: authorization, appropriation. But there are emergency appropriations of over $50 billion to move not just one industry forward, but to move all industries forward, to move our economic and our national security interests forward together.

By the way, just so if people tune in and wonder, What is this all about? Let me just say all the things I just mentioned, $50 billion in emergency appropriations, the desire and the need and the will of the American people, as represented by the Senate and the House, to move forward on economic and national security interests.

We should put that all aside, my friends are suggesting, and don't do any of that today. So we are not going to authorize; we are not going to spend money; we are not going to move ourselves forward from an economic security and a national security perspective.

This is what they would like us to do instead, and I am reading from their bill, the thing they just said we should do instead of doing all the things I just mentioned: resolve that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that two consecutive quarters of negative growth in gross domestic product constitutes a recession. That is what they would like to do.

We would like to move America forward. We would like to build a supply chain that works for all Americans. We want to make sure our economy is strong now and in the future. We want to make sure our national defense is strong, that the American public is protected, that democracy is protected across the world. And that is what we are doing. That is what our partners in the Senate are doing. They want to define what a recession is. That is their plan.

I would ask America: Should we stop what we are doing? Should we put an end to our desire to make sure we are competitive on the world stage? Should we not protect America's economic interests? Should we not protect America's national security interests? And we should define in the House of Representatives what a recession is? That is what we want to do? That is their plan?

I think most Americans watching would be scratching their heads. I think they would wonder why is it people don't want to make us competitive here in the House of Representatives. Well, we do. The majority--and I suspect a fair number of their colleagues are going to vote for this, too, because they know it is good for America, and they know it is good for the future, for not only my generation, but my children's generation, my grandchildren's generation, and generations to come.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I do worry sometimes that the public sometimes doesn't understand what is being said here. It is curious that my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Illinois, would scream about the consensus calendar.

Let me just be clear, folks back home. We created the consensus calendar. It didn't exist in the past. The Democrats created it to try to create more bipartisanship. What we are doing here is simply pausing, as we have done on both sides when both sides were in the majority--pausing during the August district work period.

This is something that I just find fascinating. We didn't even have a consensus calendar when Republicans were in charge. We are pausing it for the next 6 weeks. I appreciate the distinguished gentleman, but I want to assure the American public that what they should be focused on is the work we should be doing today, the work that is actually getting done to strengthen our resolve around the world, to strengthen our economic position, to build jobs for families across America, to aid consumer electronics and business electronics, and all the things that we want to do around quantum computing and quantum communications, and taking American ingenuity, American innovation, which has been the hallmark of our growth as a Nation for two centuries, and doubling down and saying we are not going to stand aside and let others take a leadership position in this world.

America is going to stand up. We are going to do what we have always done. We are going to invest in smart people; we are going to build our economic future; and we are going to build our national security future. It starts here today. That is what we should keep our eyes on.

Everyone should pay attention. This is what we are doing. I am expecting and hoping that we are going to have a substantially bipartisan vote on this bill when it comes to the floor as it did in the Senate just yesterday.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, while I have just a moment, I want to share with those who tuned in some comments about the underlying bill for this rule. ``This funding will help kick-start domestic production of these semiconductors in a way that will prevent a vulnerability of our supply chain . . .'' ``One other benefit to this bill is that this bill could create roughly 185,000 jobs every year as these new facilities are constructed.'' That was said by John Cornyn from Texas yesterday on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

From Roy Blunt, a Republican Senator from Missouri said: ``This bill includes targeted investments in technological development and manufacturing that will strengthen our position in a global economy. The bill expands the successful Manufacturing U.S.A. program by creating new innovation hubs and helps ensure we have the right Federal policy in place to support the research and development of emerging technologies. I was proud to be a part of this effort, and I urge our House colleagues to get this bill to the President's desk.''

Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia said this: ``America can never be replaced as the global economic and innovation leader. Winning the future means making the necessary investments to address issues like the microchip shortage, prepare the next generation of workers in science and technology fields, and keep up with our competitors, including China. This legislation not only bets on American ingenuity, but it also authorizes funding that can be utilized by our institutions of higher education . . .''

How about Todd Young, a Republican from Indiana: ``It's time to go on the offensive, and that is exactly what this legislation, which has gone by many names--from the Endless Frontier Act to the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act to CHIPS-Plus--will do . . .'' ``This bill will unleash private sector innovation while significantly boosting Federal national security investments. It's been a long journey to get to this point, but history will show that by passing this bill, we are confronting the challenges of today and building a prosperous and secure tomorrow for all Americans.''

Rob Portman, a Republican from Ohio: ``Today's passage of the CHIPS Act is critical in the effort to bring semiconductor manufacturing back to the United States, protect our national security, and create thousands of high-paying jobs in Ohio. I was proud to help lead efforts in the Senate to pass this legislation and ensure that Intel's planned semiconductor plant in central Ohio remains on track and reaches its full potential. I urge the House to act quick on this bipartisan legislation so the President can sign it into law, and I look forward to attending the groundbreaking for this transformational project in the coming months.''

The reviews keep coming, and they are all positive. We have got to move this today in the House. We have got to get it to the President's desk. We have not a moment to lose in the race for America's future and to make sure that we are secure for generations to come.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I thank my great friend and colleague for the opportunity to engage in a thoughtful conversation about issues where we may agree and we may disagree, but I always appreciate him.

I would just note, though, that all the conversations I have had over the last many, many months about American competitiveness has largely been with my chamber of commerce, with business leaders, CEOs of companies who are desperate that we continue to move forward in repairing the challenges of our microelectronic supply chain. I haven't heard from any Socialists about it. They may have different communication with people, but I have heard from the business community; I have heard from economic drivers; I have heard from innovators; I have heard from entrepreneurs about the need to make this go.

Madam Speaker, I want to, first of all, thank my colleagues who have spoken in support of the rule. I want to thank those who have put this bill before us. Support for this rule showcases a commitment to American leadership in research, manufacturing, and innovation for decades to come. It showcases a commitment to lowering costs for families, creating job opportunities, and building long-term economic stability that will uplift families across this country. It showcases a commitment to investing in regional innovation and leveraging the significant untapped potential that so many communities hold, including my own in Rochester, New York.

We can't afford to wait any longer to make these critical investments. We must join our colleagues in the Senate and show the American people we are committed to taking on China and reestablishing our place on the global stage as a force to be reckoned with.

This is a pivotal moment in our Nation's history. We must meet it head-on and deliver investments that will ensure every family in every community has the opportunity to achieve the American Dream. This legislation will do just that.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 1289

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

resolution (H. Res. 1290) expressing the sense of the House

of Representatives that two consecutive quarters of negative

growth in gross domestic product, as reported by the Bureau

of Economic Analysis, constitutes a recession. The resolution

shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to

adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of

the question except one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Oversight and Reform. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX

shall not apply to the consideration of House Resolution

1290.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1300 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1300, waiving clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules against any resolution reported through the legislative day of July 29, 2022.

The rule also allows certain legislation to qualify for the Consensus Calendar before the end of Congress.

Madam Speaker, we are here on a same-day rule, which I hope will give us the opportunity to address a critical and urgent issue: gun violence in America.

We are here because gun violence is destroying communities, tearing apart families, and making our streets less safe. This majority is going to try to do every single thing we possibly can to stop it. I don't know whether we will succeed, but we are going to try.

Democrats actually passed the Safer Communities Act, the first piece of major gun safety legislation in decades, and we sent it to President Biden's desk. We are taking action. We are getting things done, and we are trying to save lives.

Contrast that with what Republicans did to address gun violence and crime the last time they were in charge, which is absolutely nothing. Their answer to gun violence is more guns, and if that is not enough, even more guns. For God's sake, America already has more guns than people. How many guns do we need until everybody is safe?

I get it. My Republican friends are going to complain about the process. They are going to complain about same-day authority, even though they used it themselves, but let's not go there because we want to have a productive debate here.

The reality is this: This is the last day before the district work period, and this is urgent work.

Now, let me tell you, as chairman of the House Committee on Rules, I want to do whatever I can to get us to vote on and pass an assault weapons ban because I am sick and tired of the mass shootings and the terror and the fear. I am sick and tired of shattered families having to grieve.

Enough is enough. I am going to do everything I can to get this bill passed, and I am not going to apologize for that. This rule preserves that option. If it means that we stay here a little bit longer today, so be it. We need to act with urgency.

Let me just say, for the record, the assault weapons bill that we may possibly consider today went through regular order. The Committee on the Judiciary had a hearing; it was marked up. If we decide to bring it to the floor today, which I hope we will, the Committee on Rules will meet, and we will debate this, and we will vote on this. But let me just say to everybody: We have an obligation to act with urgency. We have a responsibility to address this crisis.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman used the words that we are opening the door. Opening the door to what? My friends used this all the time when they were in charge. We learned this from you. I just want to say that, for the record.

As I have said, I am not the biggest fan of same-day authority, but it exists for a reason.

In December 2018, when the Democrats were in the minority, I actually voted for a rule providing for same-day authority. I stood here and urged my Democrat colleagues to support the rule. More Republicans voted ``no'' on that rule than Democrats, believe it or not.

Madam Speaker, we are about to break for a, hopefully, productive district work period, and this rule provides us with a little extra time and flexibility to be able to consider measures that are critical to our public safety.

I hope that this rule paves the way for us to bring up an assault weapons ban. That is what I hope this rule does, and I think that is urgent. I want to do everything I possibly can to get that bill to the floor and get it passed.

The gentleman quoted me, and let me quote me, too. With regard to the same-day authority, I said on the House floor: ``This House needs to move quickly and responsibly. Everyone understands that, so I will simply say that I will be voting for this rule. I urge my colleagues to do the same, so we can finish our business and prevent another government shutdown.''

That was when you were in charge. That was what I said in response to when you brought up a same-day rule.

So, nobody is opening the door. You opened that door a long time ago. But I am going to say, again, if this paves the way for us to be able to bring up an assault weapons ban, I am not apologizing at all. I want to get that legislation to the floor. I want to have that debate. I want to have a vote on it.

People are dying all over this country. They are sick of our inaction. It is time to act. Enough is enough.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, let me just say that I think as everybody knows, Democrats are focused on inflation. Tackling inflation is certainly our top priority.

Let's take a look at the facts.

We passed the Lower Food and Fuel Costs Act to bring down costs to families, and almost every Republican voted no.

We passed the Consumer Fuel Price Gouging Prevention Act, but not a single Republican voted with us.

What is the Republican solution on inflation?

Who the hell knows?

They haven't offered any policy ideas. They seem content cheering for President Biden to fail and for inflation to go up. In fact, Leader McConnell is holding hostage a bill to lower costs for families and to deal with the issue of prescription drugs.

The only plan I have seen from the GOP is from Senator Rick Scott, Republican, which would raise taxes on the middle class--raise taxes on the middle class--and put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block.

That is the same old same old from my friends on the other side.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an MSNBC opinion article titled: ``The GOP keeps slamming Biden over inflation, but it has no solutions to offer.''

[From MSNBC, June 21, 2022]

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

Offer

(By Dean Obeidallah)

Republicans want you to believe that inflation in the

United States is not part of a global problem but is 100

percent, President Joe Biden's fault.

Just check out their recent over-the-top rhetoric. House

Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., has blamed Biden

for ``creating raging inflation.'' In a tweet, Sen. Ted Cruz,

R-Texas, called inflation ``#BidenFlation,'' saying it was

caused by Biden's policies. Senate Minority Leader Mitch

McConnell, R-Ky., even made a speech on the Senate floor last

week focused on inflation, in which he detailed the rising

prices of goods, gas, etc., all leading to the crescendo that

it was Biden and the Democrats' fault.

What the GOP has left out of all its speeches, television

appearances and tweets slamming Biden is even a hint of a

proposal to reduce prices.

But what the GOP has left out of all its speeches,

television appearances and tweets slamming Biden is even a

hint of a proposal to reduce prices. Even worse than the GOP

not having a plan of its own, though, is Republicans'

determination to block Biden's efforts to help Americans.

They've opposed his agenda to lower child care costs, create

affordable housing and more. Biden made that very point in

his June 14 speech about his plans to address inflation, in

which he declared that ``Republicans in Congress are doing

everything they can to stop my plans to bring down costs on

ordinary families.''

There's no disputing that prices in our nation rose 8.6

percent in May since last year at that time, the highest rate

since 1981. Food prices have risen over 10 percent since May

2021, and gas prices have skyrocketed. Just about everything

we use on a daily basis costs more.

Biden candidly acknowledged this reality in last week's

speech, noting that inflation is ``sapping the strength of a

lot of families.'' He said he understands firsthand what this

is like, noting that when he was a child growing up in a

blue-collar family, ``it mattered if the price of food went

up.''

A convergence of issues has caused this spike in inflation.

The well-documented supply chain issues that followed Covid

shutdowns drove up prices. Some of it was fueled by us,

consumers who unleashed our pent-up demand to travel and buy

goods after things reopened. More demand equals higher

prices.

Russia's attack on Ukraine added to higher gas prices, which

contribute to higher prices for goods, since it costs more to

transport them.

This is in no way a Biden-caused problem--unless

Republicans are telling us he caused inflation worldwide,

which they very well might say before November. A Pew

Research Center report released just last week documented

that in 37 of the 44 nations with ``advanced economies,'' the

``average annual inflation rate in the first quarter of this

year was at least twice what it was in the first quarter of

2020.'' In fact, the United States during the first quarter

of this year was 13 of 44 in terms of inflation, far eclipsed

by countries such as Italy, Israel, Spain, Greece and Turkey.

This leads us to the hard reality that there's no easy

solution for inflation; if there were, Biden would've flipped

that switch months ago. And cynical Republicans know that.

At least Biden does have a plan, which, like the causes of

inflation, is multifaceted.

With respect to gas prices, in addition to releasing oil

from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to increase supplies,

the president last week sent a letter to U.S. oil companies

demanding that they increase the production of oil and to

stop unfairly profiting on Americans' need for gas. He even

threatened to ``use all reasonable and appropriate Federal

Government tools and emergency authorities to increase

refinery capacity and output in the near term.'' In his

speech last week, Biden noted that on food costs, he was

``working closely with our European partners to get 20

million tons of grains locked in Ukraine out onto the market

to help bring down food prices.'' The president also

explained his efforts to reduce other household costs to

offset the higher gas and food prices, such as capping the

cost of insulin at $35--a bill for which passed the House in

March but still has not passed the Senate due to lack of

Republican support.

So where is the GOP plan to address inflation? Republicans

have had plenty of time to come up with one, given that they

have been screaming since last summer that Biden caused

inflation.

Here's the best I can find: In May, Sen. Rick Scott, R-

Fla., the chair of the National Republican Senatorial

Committee, laid out his plan. ``The most effective thing Joe

Biden can do to solve the inflation crisis he created is

resign,'' Scott said. Then there's McCarthy, who earlier this

month offered the following proposal as his ``solution'' to

rising costs: ``I call on Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats

to hold a prime-time hearing on the out-of-control inflation

their policies have created.''

Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., the third-ranking member of

the House GOP, isn't even pretending her party has a plan.

She recently said of inflation, ``House Republicans will

address these crises when we earn back control of the House

this November.'' Sure, America, let's trust the party of tax

cuts for the wealthy to look out for the rest of us.

We all get how politics works. The party out of power

blames the party in power for everything that's bad. But in

this case, inflation is directly impacting the lives of all

Americans. It's time Democrats and the media press every

Republican who blames Biden for inflation to answer this

simple question: What is the GOP plan to reduce it? Americans

deserve an answer.

Madam Speaker, since my friends want to change the subject, let's change the subject.

Republicans right now, as we are meeting here, over in the Senate are trying to kill the PACT Act, a bill to guarantee healthcare to veterans with service-related cancers. This is a bill that passed the Senate originally 84-14, and it passed the House with a majority vote of 342. Many of my Republican colleagues supported that. I appreciate that. But now Republicans are trying to kill it and play politics with it over in the Senate. They are putting politics ahead of people when, in fact, we should be putting people ahead of politics.

So while we are here having this conversation, I would urge my Republican friends to pick up the phone and call your counterparts in the Senate and say: Get out of the way and do what is right for our veterans.

My office is getting calls from veterans who were exposed to burn pits when they were overseas. I am sure my Republican friends are getting calls in their offices. You don't have to agree on everything, but I thought we all agreed on this.

Can we please tell Mitch McConnell and tell the Republicans to get out of the way and allow this bill to go forward?

That might be a good use of time right now while we are having this conversation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, let me just say that I really enjoyed listening to my friends on the other side of the aisle. They are opposed to this rule because the process will expedite progress on behalf of the American people. Yet they are not outraged over using process to block progress for the American people.

Again, since we are changing the subject, I didn't hear anything about the veterans who right now are desperately pleading with Republicans in the Senate to pass the PACT Act. The gentleman even got extra time and didn't mention that at all.

Again, I would urge my Republicans, as we are still here today, before you leave, call Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, call your Republican counterparts in the Senate, and say: please pass the PACT Act. Please do that now.

Our veterans who are suffering from cancer as a result of their service and being exposed to burn pits are desperately pleading with my Republican friends to stop blocking it.

Do you want to be outraged about something today?

Be outraged about that.

So, again, I would urge that they do something.

Many of my colleagues on the Republican side supported the PACT Act when it came before the House.

A majority of Republicans in the Senate voted to support it; but now they are putting politics ahead of people. It should be reversed. Put people ahead of politics.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

So, Madam Speaker, I don't know who that guy who was yelling is, but I would refer him to my earlier comments on all the things that we are doing to combat inflation and the stuff that we will be rolling out in the days ahead.

But I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to go over to

the Senate and yell at Mitch McConnell so that we can help our veterans. I mean, it is unconscionable that, as we are gathering here right now, Republicans in the Senate are blocking a bill to provide care for veterans exposed to burn pits who have cancer.

I mean, what is going on here? I mean, people who are responsible for that are unfit to serve in the United States Congress, quite frankly.

Do you want to be outraged about something? Be outraged about that at this moment. And we also should be outraged at the alarming rate of gun violence in this country. And my hope is that this same-day rule will pave the way for the Rules Committee to meet and to bring forward a ban on assault weapons so we can save lives in this country. So that is what this is all about today.

But, again, with all of the yelling and screaming, please go over to the other Chamber and yell and scream at them because right now a lot of our veterans are concerned that they will succeed in killing a bill that will provide them healthcare that they desperately need.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

So, Madam Speaker, the gentleman who just spoke was yielded time again, and again, didn't say anything about the veterans who are getting screwed by Senate Republicans right now in the other Chamber.

Right now, we should take our outrage and we should demand that Republicans get out of the way.

And, by the way, to my friend from Pennsylvania, I just went back and I read the transcript of what our exchange was in the Rules Committee, and I think I was pretty clear.

When I am looking at the transcript, I was asked last night, you know, why we needed this authority, and I said it was to consider public safety bills.

I was further asked if we would use it to consider gun legislation, and I said, yes, potentially.

Now, I don't know whether it is my Massachusetts accent or what, but I think I was pretty clear about what we were going to bring to the floor today. And, again, I hope that we will follow through with what I said yesterday.

So this idea that, oh, I didn't know--and by the way, there are times, as I said at the opening, when same-day authority is, to me, necessary. There are other times when it is not. And when the Republicans were in charge and they used it for frivolous things, yeah, I objected to it. But when they used it in an attempt to try to keep government open, I favored it.

So I don't know what the gentleman is talking about, hypocrisy. I mean, I have been in favor of it when I was in the minority, and I have been opposed to it when I was in the minority. So it all depends on the circumstances.

I think maybe my Republican friends have trouble with nuance and trying to understand the complexities of the system here. But I am totally comfortable with my position, past, and present.

And by the way, if this same-day authority means that we can bring up an assault weapons ban, I don't apologize to anybody. I don't apologize to anybody. I think it is the right thing to do.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The gentleman said we should let the Senate do its work. Exactly. The Senate Republicans are blocking the Senate from doing its work. What do my friends not understand?

Veterans with cancer are depending on Republicans to get out of the way so they can get the care that they, quite frankly, are entitled to, that they deserve.

It passed overwhelmingly originally in the Senate. It passed overwhelmingly in the House. But Senate Republicans are playing politics with the lives of our veterans.

I am outraged by that. Maybe my friends on the other side are not, but we ought to be demanding that they move immediately.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I don't think it is appropriate for my Republican friends to lecture us on hypocrisy. The last time the Republicans were in charge of this place, they ran it into the ground.

When Republicans were in charge, they broke the record for the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

When Republicans were in charge and our country was on the brink of a shutdown, the Rules Committee, under Republican control, held an emergency meeting. Do you know what that emergency meeting was on? Not on emergency funding but on cheese, actually, as we were about to shut the government down. We had a major crisis, and they did an emergency meeting on cheese.

They couldn't even get their act together to keep the lights on. They literally lost the majority because of how badly they ran this place, and then they handed us a shutdown of government, the longest shutdown in history, by the way. That cost American taxpayers $11 billion.

When Republicans were in charge, I voted to give them same-day authority. I stood on this floor and urged my Democratic colleagues to support the rule because I wanted to give us extra flexibility to do the work the American people had asked us to do.

Republicans ran this place like a dictatorship, and then they tried to turn our country into one on January 6, 2021, a day that will live forever in history as a date that a twice-impeached ex-President and Republicans tried to unconstitutionally overturn a free and fair election and subvert the will of the American people in an attempted coup.

So, please do not lecture us about Democratic process or any process at all. Do not lecture us on hypocrisy.

I said last night in the Rules Committee what I hoped we would bring forward today, and I still hope we will move forward on an assault weapons ban.

Do you know why? Because people in this country are being massacred, and they are tired of thoughts and prayers. They are tired of press releases in which we say that our hearts are with the families of those who were killed.

They want action. The question is whether or not we can deliver on what the American people want.

Do you want to talk about outrage? I am outraged by the gun violence in this country. I am outraged that an 18-year-old who can't legally have a sip of beer can go into a gun store and buy an AR-15 and then go out and kill people, massacre people. Enough of this.

This rule preserves the option, if we decide to move forward, to be able to move forward. That is what this is all about. We can talk about whatever you want to talk about, but the bottom line is that is what this rule does.

We have an obligation to act with urgency. We have a responsibility to address this crisis.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 1300

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 8589) to prohibit the Securities and Exchange

Commission from finalizing the proposed rule titled ``The

Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related

Disclosures for Investors''. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be

considered as read. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Financial Services; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 8589.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. After conference negotiations failed on a package to counter the malign actions of China, the Senate drafted this legislation to send billions of taxpayer dollars in the form of subsidies and tax credits to a single industry.

Democrats' reckless spending policies led to this record-high inflation that is crushing American families and small business. The government should not be spending hundreds of billions of dollars to provide subsidies benefiting one industry.

This legislation comes to the House just 1 day after Senate Democrats announced a deal to tax American manufacturers and energy producers, which will increase the cost to American families and worsen our supply chain crisis.

They also want to hire 87,000 new IRS agents, and let's be honest about this. Those agents will do nothing more than target American families and small businesses.

They also want to spend $369 billion on their radical, far-left, Green New Deal agenda. There can be no doubt that this latest iteration of Biden's build back broke agenda will cause inflation to skyrocket even further.

The Biden administration is deflecting on our Nation's recession. They are classifying Biden's economic crisis as a ``transition'' to slower growth. While they are doubling down on their disastrous policies, they are devastating everyday Americans.

It is time my colleagues across the aisle abandon their socialist pipe dream and actually work with Republicans to get our economy back on track.

Madam Speaker, I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I don't disagree that these chips are important to the U.S. economy and many manufacturers. What I take issue with is the fact that we are putting even more money, billions of dollars, into an economy that is already suffering from record-high inflation.

It is unsettled whether this will even make a difference. It can be argued that chips were already going to come back anyhow, and it is not just me saying it. I have an article right here from

The Economist, not exactly a rightwing publication. It was published on 10 July of this year. ``When the chips are way down: After a turbocharged boom, are chipmakers in for a supersize bust?'' That is the headline.

It goes on, saying: ``Surging supply and softening demand are bringing the pandemic's superstar industry back to Earth.''

My question is: If this industry is already coming back, if it is already as important as we think it is, why do we need to inject billions of dollars into the economy that is just going to further the economic crisis we are already in?

I know my colleague from North Carolina was talking about how to spur research and development. I can tell you how to do it: You cut taxes. You cut regulations.

If you look at the TCJA, this was a huge win for U.S. research and investment: 25 percent higher than in the years prior, reaching an all- time high in 2019 of $584 billion and 3 percent of GDP.

If you want to stimulate the economy, you can do it by reducing taxes and reducing regulation, not by picking winners and losers.

To talk more about this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend and fellow Rules Committee member.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, just a point of clarification. This is just an authorization. We will still wait a year anyhow to appropriate these funds, so trying to act like we have a gun to our head right now and this is a do-or-die moment is completely illusory. Again, this is just an authorization.

Additionally, I agree with my friend from New York on two points. Number one, we have got to be competitive with China.

Number two, the semiconductor chips are important for the economy.

But the way to compete with China is not to emulate the policies of a Communist police state. The way to compete with China is to unleash the American economy, to get back to our Western roots of free-market capitalism. If we want to bring more businesses onshore, if we want to fix our supply chain crisis, we can start by reducing the burdensome regulations that are crippling American businesses. We can reduce our income tax and our corporate income tax to make us more competitive globally, and we can do something to make sure we have cheap, reliable, abundant energy resources, such as exploiting our natural gas reserves and perhaps investing in nuclear power.

But to sit here and say that we are going to compete with China by doing what the Chinese do and having some bureaucratic monster in D.C. pick winners and losers for a particular industry is not a winning proposition.

What will beat China and keep us competitive with China is getting back to what made this country great in the first place, and again that is free-market capitalism.

Let's talk about inflation because, again, this is going to put billions of dollars into the economy, which will make this situation worse. Americans are facing the highest inflation in over 40 years. This is literally the worst inflation in my lifetime. This morning we learned that GDP has decreased for a second quarter in a row.

Yet, the Treasury Secretary wants to downplay Biden's economic crisis by redefining recession, which for decades recession has been defined as two quarters of negative economic growth. Instead, Secretary Yellen and the leftists across the aisle want to play Orwellian and change the definition to ``a period of transition.'' Even the extreme liberal think tank, The Brookings Institution, acknowledged we are in a recession, but it seems, again, my colleagues across the aisle have forgotten basic economics.

House Republicans want to set the record straight. That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider House Resolution 1290, a resolution affirming the longstanding definition of a recession.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), my good friend and the sponsor of this resolution, to explain the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just to clarify, this is not an either/or choice here. If we defeat the previous question, we can consider the resolution of my good friend from Arizona to actually define recession, and then we can take up the underlying bill. Again, this is a false choice saying it is one or the other. We can do both.

People may ask, Why is it necessary to define recession? It is necessary because the party across the aisle are trying to redefine recession. But I shouldn't be surprised. Because remember, this is the same party that tried to tell us that women are now known as birthing people. It is the party that all during the summer of 2020 told us that violent rioting and looting was mostly peaceful protesting. Now they are trying to tell us that a recession, which has been defined for decades as two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth, that that is now called a transitionary period.

So it is an absolute necessity that we define recession so that we have clarity in language.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my good friend and the ranking member on the Committee on House Administration.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) for the purpose of a rebuttal.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my good friend from New York was talking about jobs and the promise of more jobs with this act. We have heard this before. The American Rescue Plan. We sat here and debated that, and we were told by the

leftists across the aisle that this was going to create 4 million new jobs. You know what didn't happen? We didn't create 4 million new jobs. And that is not me saying that. That is a study from the American Enterprise Institute, which found that the American Rescue Plan failed to create any of the 4 million new jobs that Big Government Democrats had promised.

While we are talking about stats and figures, let's put a real cost to the inflation and the pain that is being inflicted on the American people by injecting billions of dollars into the economy. So let's put real numbers on it. Inflation will cost the average American household more than $6,000 a year. That is so high that if you have had a constant salary for the last year, you have essentially worked for more than a month without pay.

So, let me ask this: If you are sitting here watching at home, could you take one paycheck from this year, one paycheck, and just throw it out the window? Probably not.

Now, if you are part of the coastal elite and the woke, yuppie, Zoom class that is the base of the Democratic Party, you might be able to afford that. You might just go to two Pilates classes a week instead of four. You may not take that second trip to Europe. You may scale back at Whole Foods. You have that luxury if you are part of the woke Democratic base. But if you are somebody in Pittsburgh who is a retired steel worker that is on a fixed income, this hurts you. You don't have that disposable income. If you are a natural gas driller in Oklahoma that has to drive to a drill site every day to actually produce something, you have to fill your tank with gas. You don't have the option to sit at home and pretend you are working on Zoom. If you are a woman that has to drive, for example, to a diner to work a shift, you don't have the luxury of not doing that. You have to bear the burden of the inflation; again, the inflation that is being caused by the radical left policies of the Democratic Party.

Yet, despite this real economic pain, Democrats continue to want to put billions of dollars in the economy, billions in corporate handouts. They want to undo Republican tax cuts and policies that actually led to the lowest unemployment rates we have had in 50 years.

So, rather than forcing Americans to pay for their radical socialist agenda, my colleagues across the aisle should use the time to work with Republicans on policies that American families will benefit from and allow American companies to actually compete in a global economy. And we can do that all simply by reducing regulation and reducing taxation. And how about we unleash our domestic energy supply?

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I just want to, for the record, say there is nothing before us in the rule that has anything to do with any kind of assault weapons ban or policing. This is simply a rule that would waive the 24- hour requirement.

Look, to be candid, the Democrats have now opened the door for Republicans to use this in the future to push

forward our agenda, which is going to protect the rights and liberties of individual people.

I would like to take this time to point out the hypocrisy and the irony I see coming from across the aisle. Let me just talk about that.

Madam Speaker, 9 days is all it took before the Speaker reinstated her authoritarian COVID lockdown, proving once again that House Democrats are unable to govern unless they stack the deck. I would also remind my good friend that he consistently referred to these tactics as ``martial law'' during his time in the minority.

If I can just quote the chair on same-day authority during the 109th Congress: ``My problem is with significant pieces of legislation, some legislation which may not have even been heard by committees of jurisdiction, which may not have been reported out of committees of jurisdiction, bills that will come before us that the House has never even considered, things that we will not have an opportunity to be able to read before we vote on them.''

That was in the 109th Congress. Where is the outrage now?

Madam Speaker, for over 790 days, the Speaker used COVID-19 as a weapon to deny the Republicans the ability to advocate on behalf of millions of Americans that they represent. Just last week, it looked like we were finally returning to regular order. Now, it is more of the same tricks and tactics.

The blanket same-day rule before us this morning allows House Democrats to ram through their radical agenda, an agenda that does nothing to address the serious problems the American people are facing.

What are those problems? Under the Biden administration, our Nation has careened from one crisis to the next. It has been absolute chaos.

Right now, families across the country are facing 40-year high inflation that is expected to cost the average American household an extra $6,000 a year. Yesterday, we were told that we are officially in a recession when the GDP fell for a second quarter in a row. Although the Biden administration is attempting to deflect blame by referring to this latest economic disaster as a ``transition period,'' the American people know that we are in a recession and facing hard times to come because of the radical policies of the left.

It is only going to get worse with the recently announced build back broke deal, which will raise taxes on Americans. It will try to socialize American healthcare, and it will try to implement the radical Green New Deal policies that have led to this energy crisis in the first place.

Madam Speaker, this is no way to run the people's House, but I want it noted that the door is now open. I find it absolutely hypocritical that there was outrage against us when Republicans used the same tactic but now it is okay when the Democrats want to do it. I am looking forward to the day when power returns to the Republicans, and we will see if there is outrage at that point.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I am glad the gentleman also quoted himself. You can tell how I am handling this debate because I don't want to be quoted in the future when the shoe is on the other foot. But I will point out the hypocrisy from my friends on the other side of the aisle that their outrage is obviously selective of who is waiving the rule and who is not.

Look, we can talk about procedure all day here. That is not going to fix the real problems that are facing the American people. According to the National Federation of Independent Business, inflation is the top problem reported by businesses. This is the highest inflation we have had since 1980, literally the highest inflation in my lifetime.

Instead of working to lower costs for businesses and workers, the SEC proposed burdensome new rules requiring businesses to disclose extensive climate-related data and additional ``climate risks.''

Setting climate policy is the responsibility of Congress, not unelected career bureaucrats who are absolutely unaccountable to the American people.

That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 8589 that would prohibit the SEC's woke climate rule from moving forward.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, here to explain my amendment is my good friend, a senior member of the House Committee on Financial Services and the sponsor of this bill, Congressman French Hill of Arkansas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), who is a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want the Record to reflect that I am not outraged about this rule. I just was simply, at the beginning of my remarks, my opening statement, pointing out the hypocrisy from my friends across the other side of the aisle who had this selective outrage when we waived the 24- hour requirement. But it is okay when they do it.

And again, I am almost gleefully looking forward to the opportunity when we are in the majority for myself to help the then Chairman Cole of the Rules Committee do the same thing; and we will see what kind of hypocrisy comes from the other side of the aisle and how they will then have outrage when we do it.

But I am not outraged about this. I think that if we are going to move forward today, we should defeat the previous question. That is what I am passionate about, and that is what my friends that have spoken here today are passionate about, because they want to run a bill, authored by my good friend from Arkansas, that would actually help the economic crisis; that would actually help fight inflation.

So, please don't confuse passion for helping the American people out of this financial problem with outrage. There is no outrage on this side of the aisle.

But to explain more, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), my good friend, and a rising star of the Financial Services Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, it is quite remarkable that the gentleman is now telling us that this is about gun-related bills, because 14 hours ago we had questions in the Rules Committee. Those questions went unasked because the minority is unsure.

You know who was unsure when they were in the minority? My good friend. Let me quote him again. When the Republicans tried to waive the 24-hour requirement, my good friend said: ``Once again, we are here on the floor debating a martial law rule that also makes the suspension day. Here we are, once again, unsure of what we will be considering today, tonight, or tomorrow.''

So last night, at 7 P.M., my good friend, ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Cole, asked a series of questions because we wanted to get some light shed on it. He asked, what would this rule specifically be used for? The majority said they didn't know. They were unsure.

He asked if this were to be related to gun-related bills, and if those bills would be changed. The majority said they didn't know. We are unsure here.

He asked if this authority would be used for other bills. The majority said they didn't know.

He asked if the House would be in session this weekend, and also the response was, the majority didn't know.

So it's amazing how the majority is, today, so confident on what is being run today through this rule when, just 14 hours ago, when we asked those questions, those answers were not provided to the minority.

But here to talk more about the resolution that I will personally offer if we defeat the previous question is my good friend. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to again say we asked a litany of questions to try to give the minority guidance on what bills would be considered today, the context of those bills, the timing of those bills, whether we would be here this weekend. The response constantly was either: I hope not; I am unsure; I don't know. So, here we are, in the dark.

But for the purpose of a rebuttal, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I want to quote my good friend, the chairman, again, this time from 2017, when he stated that martial law allows the majority to ``rush their bill with its brand-new backroom deals to the floor today without any proper deliberation.''

I think that pretty much sums up perfectly what we are doing here today.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.