Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to "Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121".

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman McHenry for yielding.

I am pleased to speak in support of my bipartisan resolution, H.J. Res. 109, a Congressional Review Act resolution for the SEC's Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121, or SAB 121 for short.

I thank Congressman Nickel and Senator Lummis for working with me on this resolution and for the chairman's leadership in getting this to the floor.

This is something of a complicated issue, as you have heard today, so I will break it down into a few different components.

First, I will begin by explaining what a staff accounting bulletin is. Staff accounting bulletins are technical accounting guidance for public entities. They are typically noncontroversial in nature and, importantly for this debate, are not rules. Guidance is not supposed to dictate a major change in policy. That is what our notice-and-comment rulemaking process is for.

This specific bulletin effectively requires banks to put digital assets held in custody on their balance sheet. Simply put, that is not how custody usually works.

As a Federal Reserve Chairman once said: ``Custody assets are off balance sheet, always have been.''

This bulletin upends custodial practice for banks, and it effectively keeps banks out of this market entirely. That is not good for consumers or investors.

Next, let's talk about the process, as the chairman has already mentioned. There were two major process fouls by the SEC in issuing SAB 121.

Number one, the SEC is not a bank regulator, and SAB 121 affects a core banking activity: custody. Yet, the SEC issued this bulletin without even talking to the regulators first. Think about that. The SEC issued this without even talking to the prudential regulators. That is an incredible oversight, particularly given the bulletin's unusual treatment of custodial assets.

Number two, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office determined that this bulletin is effectively a rule. In other words, the SEC got caught trying to circumvent the APA and the due diligence requirements that come with it.

Now, let's talk about solutions. The easiest way to fix this problem is for the SEC to simply rescind the bulletin themselves and work with the prudential regulators on an alternate solution.

Despite the fact that this bulletin was issued through a faulty process and despite the negative ramifications of keeping banks from taking custody of retail investor assets, the SEC has been unwilling to have any conversation about making changes.

That leaves us with no choice. Congress needs to act through the Congressional Review Act to rescind SAB 121.

Finally, let me briefly address an argument that Ranking Member Waters and some of my Democratic colleagues have made on this issue. I have heard this argument that the CRA should not be applied to an accounting bulletin, but let's contemplate the alternative. What are the implications if we fail to pass this resolution?

This is an instance where the nonpartisan GAO outright said the SEC circumvented the proper regulatory process.

Mr. Speaker, think about why the Congressional Review Act was passed in the first place: to give Congress the ability to check a regulator that has gone astray. If we don't pass this resolution, we are effectively giving the green light to our regulators to bypass the APA rulemaking process with impunity.

This isn't just about the SEC or bank custody. This is about providing a necessary check to executive branch power. Regardless of your feelings on the banking policy or the SEC, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution for the sake of upholding the authority of the institution we serve in.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record four letters.

Number one is a letter dated April 27, 2023, sent by Fed Vice Chair Michael Barr to Senator Lummis, discussing the impact of SAB 121 on Fed-regulated financial institutions.

Number two is a letter dated April 18, 2023, sent by FDIC Chairman Gruenberg to Chairman McHenry and Senator Lummis, in response to their March 2, 2023, letter.

Number three is a letter dated February 28, 2024, sent by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors to Chairman McHenry and Ranking Member Waters, outlining the unintended effects SAB 121 could pose on consumers and markets.

Board of Governors of the

Federal Reserve System,

Washington, DC, April 27, 2023.

Hon. Cynthia M. Lummis,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator: Thank you for your letter dated March 2,

2023, regarding the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 (``SAB 121'') published on

April 11, 2022.

As you know, the Federal Reserve is not responsible for the

general accounting policy for public companies and, as such,

Federal Reserve staff were not consulted by the SEC regarding

the development and issuance of SAB 121. For accounting and

reporting purposes under U.S. generally accepted accounting

principles (GAAP), assets held in custody are generally not

recognized on the custodian's balance sheet--as the custodian

does not control the assets--and we defer to the SEC on these

matters. However, I would note that state member banks may

provide safekeeping services, in a custodial capacity, for

crypto-assets if conducted in a safe and sound manner and in

compliance with consumer, anti-money laundering, and anti-

terrorist financing laws.

By law, regulatory reports and statements required to be

filed with Federal banking agencies by all insured depository

institutions must be uniform and consistent with U.S. GAAP.

In light of SAB 121, the Federal Financial Institutions

Examination Council (FFIEC) issued supplemental instructions

to the Call Report related to SAB 121. The supplemental

instructions state that an institution that determines that

it is appropriate for it to apply SAB 121 for SEC or other

financial reporting purposes should complete its Call Report

consistent with the classification determination made for SEC

or other financial reporting purposes. Institutions are

encouraged to consult with SEC staff on the scope and

applicability of SAB 121.

The Basel Committee's prudential treatment of crypto-asset

exposures applies to various types of exposures to banks,

such as exposures held as securities on balance sheet or

through derivatives. However, the Basel standard does not

generally apply to custodial assets.

The Federal Reserve continues to take a careful and

cautious approach related to current or proposed crypto-

asset-related activities at each banking organization and

will continue to ensure that legally permissible activities

are conducted in a manner that is safe and sound, and in

compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including

those designed to protect consumers.

Sincerely,

Michael S. Barr.

Mr. Speaker, number four is a letter dated February 29, 2024, sent by the American Bankers Association to Chairman McHenry and Ranking Member Waters, expressing support for H.J. Res. 109.

American Bankers Association,

Washington, DC, February 29, 2024.

Re Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the

Securities and Exchange Commission relating to ``Staff

Accounting'' Bulletin No. 121'' (H.J. Res. 109).

Hon. Patrick McHenry,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Maxine Waters,

Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McHenry and Ranking Member Waters: The

American Bankers Association (ABA) welcomes and supports H.J.

Res. 109, the Congressional Review Act resolution of

disapproval for the Securities and Exchange Commission

``Staff Accounting Bulletin 121.'' which was recently

introduced by Reps. Mike and Flood (R-NE) and Wiley Nickel

(D-NC).

Adverse Impact of SAB 121 on Bank Digital Asset Products and Services

In March 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

released Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 (SAB 121) to address

perceived risks to publicly traded companies that safeguard

crypto assets for their customers. Under SAB 121, an entity

responsible for safeguarding cryptocurrency assets for

platform users must present a liability on its balance sheet

at fair value to reflect that obligation, as well as a

corresponding asset. SAB 121 is a departure from the banking

industry's historical practice of treating custody assets

off-balance sheet, and this accounting treatment effectively

precludes banks from offering digital asset custody at scale

since placing the value of client assets on balance sheet

will impact prudential requirements such as capital,

liquidity, and other mandates.

On February 14, 2024, ABA joined with several other

financial trades in a joint letter to the SEC. In the letter,

we noted that U.S. banking organizations' experience over the

past two years with SAB 121 shows that it has curbed the

ability of our members to develop and bring to market at

scale certain digital asset products and services. We gave

two concrete examples:

(1) Spot Bitcoin ETPs

The Commission recently approved Spot Bitcoin Exchange

Traded Products (ETPs), allowing investors access to this

asset class through a regulated product. However, notably

absent from those approved products are banking organizations

serving as the asset custodian, a role they regularly play

for most other ETPs. These ETPs have already experienced

billions of dollars in inflows, but it is practically

impossible for banks to serve as custodian for those ETPs at

scale due to the Tier 1 capital ratio and other reserve and

capital requirements that result from SAB 121. This raises

important questions about the safety and stability of this

ecosystem.

We believe that this result could raise concentration risk,

as one nonbank entity now serves as the custodian for the

majority of these ETPs. That risk can be mitigated if

prudentially regulated banking organizations have the same

ability to provide custodial services for Commission

regulated ETPs as qualified nonbank asset custodians. SAB 121

does not appear to contemplate this type of concentration

risk, in part perhaps because Spot Bitcoin ETPs or similar

products were not an approved product at the time SAB 121 was

issued.

(2) Use of DLT to record traditional financial assets

Banking organizations are increasingly exploring the use of

Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) to record traditional

financial assets, such as bonds. The use of DLT has the

potential to expedite and automate payment, clearing,

reconciliation and settlement services, and multiple central

banks outside the United States are partnering with banks to

explore the adoption of DLT. However, SAB 121 has proven to

be a barrier to banking organizations' ability to

meaningfully engage in DLT-based projects due to the breadth

of the definition of ``crypto-asset'' in SAB 121: ``a digital

asset that is issued and/or transferred using distributed

ledger or blockchain technology using cryptographic

techniques.''

Under this definition, a traditional financial asset issued

or transferred using DLT could be considered a ``crypto

asset'' and thus within scope of SAB 121, regardless of the

applicable risks. SAB 121 makes no distinction between asset

types and use cases, but instead generally states that

crypto-assets pose certain technological, legal, and

regulatory risks requiring on-balance sheet treatment.

However, there are significant differences between a

cryptocurrency like Bitcoin that exists on a public,

permissionless network versus a traditional financial

instrument that is recorded on a blockchain network where

access is controlled and transactions can be cancelled,

corrected, or amended.

The past two years have underscored these differences, as

the turmoil in the crypto market has been wholly unrelated to

banks' use of permissioned DLT. DLT does not change the

underlying nature or risks of traditional assets, nor do they

present the risks SAB 121 purports to address, and thus SAB

121's application to those assets should be reconsidered.

Clear indication from the Commission that the use of DLT to

record or transfer traditional financial assets is

consistently outside the scope of SAB 121 would alleviate

associated challenges.

In the February 14 letter, we made several recommendations

for changes to SAB 121

that would mitigate the specific challenges identified above

without undermining the stated policy objectives of the SEC

to enhance the information received by investors and other

users of financial statements. We also asked for a meeting to

discuss those changes, but as yet have not had a response

from the SEC.

Adverse Consequences for Consumers

Banks have long provided safe and well-regulated custody

services to investors for securities and other assets.

However, the implications of SAB 121 mean few banks are

currently offering custody services for digital assets,

leaving consumers with few options for a safe, well-regulated

custody service for digital assets.

In fact, many have turned to non-bank market entrants that

are not subject to prudential regulation and examination and

are not subject to robust capital and liquidity requirements.

This unregulated activity can expose consumers and

counterparties to significant harm.

Conclusion

We applaud Representatives Flood and Nickel for their

leadership on this important issue. The SEC's Staff

Accounting Bulletin 121 represents a significant departure

from longstanding accounting treatment for custodied assets

and threatens the banking industry's ability to provide its

customers with safe and sound custody of digital assets,

Limiting banks' ability to offer these services leaves

consumers with few well-regulated, trusted options for their

digital asset portfolios and ultimately exposes them to risk.

We encourage you and your membership to favorably report

this resolution out of the Committee. We would be pleased to

meet with you and your staff to discuss how Staff Accounting

Bulletin 121 inhibits consumer access to safe, sounds access

to digital asset custody services.

Sincerely,

Kirsten Sutton,

Executive Vice President,

American Bankers Association.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.J. Res. 109, a Congressional Review Act resolution that would overturn accounting guidance for crypto

assets from the Securities and Exchange Commission known as Staff Accounting Bulletin 121, or SAB 121.

The bill's sponsors have falsely asserted that this bill is meant to address a narrow concern from a particular special interest group, but, in reality, it is drafted in a way that is far broader than this narrow concern.

The collateral damage caused by this CRA resolution would be far- reaching, causing significant harm to investors, consumers, public companies, and the safety and soundness of our capital markets.

The bill takes a sledgehammer to fix an issue that may merely need a scalpel, and it does so because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not only interested in doing the bidding of special interest groups, they are also interested in attacking and undermining the SEC in every possible way, as they have done relentlessly since the beginning of this Congress.

SAB 121 is highly technical guidance, therefore, let me break it down simply. SAB 121 has been in place for 2 years, and it only applies to companies that hold crypto assets on behalf of their customers.

This is known as providing custody services. SAB 121 provides guidance for these companies in two respects.

First, it advises companies on how they should disclose crypto assets that they have in custody, and second, it advises companies on how they should record those crypto assets on their balance sheets.

The first prong of the guidance I described on disclosure of crypto assets is critical to providing transparency for investors and the public on volatile crypto assets.

This kind of transparency helps prevent the kind of fraud and mishandling of crypto assets that led to the collapse of major crypto companies like FTX. In fact, this disclosure guidance has been broadly supported by industry and advocate stakeholders alike.

The second prong of SAB 121 advises relevant companies on how to record crypto assets on their balance sheets.

Under the guidance, the amount of the liability should correspond to the fair value of the crypto assets they are obligated to safeguard.

This ensures that the company providing custody services has sufficient resources to secure these assets for the users against any theft, loss, or other misuse that could result in financial consequences.

The SEC has explained that this guidance is prudent due to the unique risks and uncertainties associated with crypto assets.

The sponsor of this resolution has tried to reason that this bill is meant to respond to a narrow concern from largely custody banks, but it really has much more far-reaching, negative consequences.

Specifically, this special interest group has raised concerns that the second prong of SAB 121 that I described on accounting mechanisms would interact with existing bank capital requirements in a way that would absolutely make it cost prohibitive for them to provide custody services for crypto assets.

To be clear, even this special interest group has expressed support for the disclosure guidance in SAB 121. They are only concerned about how the accounting guidance applies to their balance sheet.

In fact, a letter sent by the special interest group requests ``targeted modifications'' to address this concern.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Bank Policy Institute, the American Bankers Association, the Financial Services Forum, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

February 14, 2024.

Hon. Gary Gensler,

Chair, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, this bill does far more than implement targeted modifications, as this letter proposes.

This CRA resolution would overturn all of SAB 121, not just the part that this special interest group has complained about.

Mr. Speaker, I am curious whether my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have actually read this letter from the special interest group that they are trying to pander to or whether they are bothered to consult the largest custody bank in the United States, the Bank of New York Mellon, which holds in custody more than $45 trillion in customer assets because they told me that they do not want this CRA and did not push for it in any way because they share our concerns about the bill being overly broad.

The consequences of using a CRA, rather than a more narrowly tailored bill, go beyond simply overturning SAB 121 entirely when the aforementioned concerns from special interests only have to do with one little piece of it.

If this resolution is passed, the SEC would be prohibited from issuing any guidance in the future that is substantially similar to this one, including disclosure guidance on this issue. This means that the SEC would not be able to simply turn around and narrowly address this one little concern while preserving the rest of the guidance. It also means that while the crypto industry clamors for the SEC to provide for clarity, this resolution would tie the SEC's hands, making it harder for them to provide the clarity that the industry purportedly wants.

I am further concerned that if this resolution is passed, industry and investors alike will no longer be able to receive timely guidance from the SEC staff, as this resolution is also intended to be a warning. Passing this resolution would have broad and negative consequences for all public companies and their investors, with implications for the entire securities market, not just crypto.

The SEC has issued numerous staff accounting bulletins. The one being repealed today is No. 121, which has helped companies understand how SEC rules apply in specific situations.

If the SEC were to pull back in this regard, it would be particularly harmful to smaller companies with less resources dedicated to compliance and could result in more enforcement actions as they struggle to understand how to best comply with SEC rules.

Chairman McHenry and I have worked well together to find common ground on crypto issues like stablecoins. However, instead of finding ways to work together, Republicans are recklessly pushing this harmful, partisan resolution.

Let us not forget, the SEC is our cop on the block and should be supported because they protect our investors.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This is my response to the gentleman from Nebraska. My Republican colleagues have claimed that the SEC failed to consult with prudential regulators on SAB 121, but if this resolution is passed, the SEC will effectively be barred from consulting with prudential regulators in order to issue revised guidance on this matter.

Again, the plain consequences of this bill do not match the purported goals of the bill's sponsor and supporters. If Republicans wanted the SEC to consult with prudential regulators and reissue modified guidance, they should do that. This bill does the opposite. It actually prevents the SEC from consulting with prudential regulators in order to reissue modified guidance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy from the White House.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.J. Res. 109--Congressional Disapproval of ``Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121'' Issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission--Rep. Flood,

R-NE, and four cosponsors

The Administration strongly opposes passage of H.J. Res.

109, which would disrupt the Securities and Exchange

Commission's (SEC) work to protect investors in crypto-asset

markets and to safeguard the broader financial system. H.J.

Res. 109 would invalidate SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin 121

(SAB 121), which reflects considered SEC staff views

regarding the accounting obligations of certain firms that

safeguard crypto-assets. Moreover, as explained in staff's

accompanying release, SAB 121 was issued in response to

demonstrated technological, legal, and regulatory risks that

have caused substantial losses to consumers. By virtue of

invoking the Congressional Review Act, it could also

inappropriately constrain the SEC's ability to ensure

approriate guardrails and address future issues related to

crypto-assets including financial stability. Limiting the

SEC's ability to maintain a comprehensive and effective

financial regulatory framework for crypto-assets would

introduce substantial financial instability and market

uncertainty.

If the President were presented with H.J. Res. 109, he

would veto it.

The President states that the resolution before us would ``disrupt the Securities and Exchange Commission's work to protect investors in crypto-asset markets and to safeguard the broader financial system.''

This statement not only explains how terrible this resolution is, but that the President of the United States of America will veto it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch) who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill has been opposed by the Biden administration. Further, this bill is opposed by the following organizations: Americans for Financial Reform, Better Markets, Public Citizen, Consumer Federation of America, United States Public Interest Research Group; New Jersey Citizen Action, Demand Progress, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Texas Appleseed, 20/20 Vision, and Bank of New York Mellon.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have echoed calls from the crypto industry saying that legislation is needed to provide clarification on how securities laws apply to them, but their actions reveal their true motivation.

They don't want clarity; they want broad exemption from securities laws.

Let's look at their actions to date. The first crypto-related bill that Republicans marked up was the FIT 21 Act which they claimed was responsive to the need for clarity on crypto.

The only thing clear about this highly convoluted bill is that it would provide the crypto industry with broad exemptions from current securities.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the industry, the custody industry, the big banks that hold these crypto assets simply asked for a little correction, a little clarity, a little information.

The Republicans are taking advantage of this, and this is the first crypto bill that Republicans are bringing to the floor today, and it would do what the majority always attempts to do, and this would actually reverse SEC guidance that provides clarity on accounting standards specifically for crypto assets. Not only that, but it would undermine the SEC's ability to provide clarity on crypto in the future.

That is why the administration sees this bill for what it is and has advised us that they would veto it.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the sponsor of this bill, Mr. Flood, has asked what the alternative to this CRA resolution would be, and that answer is very simple: Draft a bill that narrowly addresses the current question about how this guidance applies to banks. The use of a CRA is dangerous and reckless.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Davidson entered a letter into the Record from several bank trades. What he did not mention was that the banks only asked for target modifications when they wrote about this legislation. In fact, in that letter, they supported the transparency requirements this resolution would repeal.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to see this bill for what it is. It is a giveaway to one powerful special interest group in an effort to weaken the SEC, a crucial agency that protects investors and the functioning of our capital markets. This is the agency that is working to protect the retirement savings of millions of Americans. This is the agency that is crucial to making our capital markets the envy of the world. This is the agency at the forefront of ensuring that innovation, like in crypto, is done responsibly and in accordance with existing security laws. We simply cannot afford to weaken the SEC.

Moreover, this resolution harms investors by eliminating much-needed transparency on volatile crypto assets, making it harder for them to make informed investment decisions. It also harms crypto users because transparency also deters fraud and other mismanagement of assets that can lead to devastating losses for consumers.

Additionally, the resolution increases the likelihood of market volatility because a lack of transparency can result in more unexpected failures of crypto-related companies.

Finally, this resolution harms all public companies who benefit from the SEC's practice of providing timely guidance through Staff Accounting Bulletins.

If the Republicans would like to address the issue raised by large custody banks, they should do that, but there is no need to cause broader harm to the SEC and all of the people and companies that rely on it to maintain safety and stability.

Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States would not be giving us this information this early about vetoing unless they saw this as a serious issue that must be dealt with right here on the floor of the House of Representatives.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today is a serious day, a serious moment for this institution. Apparently, according to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the House Republicans, we are gathered here today to discuss a very consequential question, a consequential issue facing the country, Madam Speaker: home appliances. Toasters, microwaves, and refrigerators are the topics, Madam Speaker, that House Republicans have chosen to waste this institution's time on.

Of all the challenges facing the country, of all the issues facing our community, apparently their top priority is the so-called Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act.

Madam Speaker, you may recall that Republicans noticed a Rules Committee meeting on this very same bill just a few weeks ago. That bill was then hastily removed. We assumed it was because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle were essentially shamed into pulling it from the agenda, that they realized a bill on home appliances probably doesn't meet the moment, considering all the real crises that we have going on. Apparently, that shame only lasted for a few weeks because today's legislation, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, is back for round two.

Just to be clear, Madam Speaker--I know you are aware of this--this is a package deal. This isn't the only appliance bill that Republicans have noticed for this body to consider. The Liberty in Laundry Act is the real title of a bill that House Republicans would like this body to consider, as well as the Refrigerator Freedom Act, the Clothes Dryers Reliability Act, the Affordable Air Conditioning Act, the Stop Unaffordable Dishwasher Standards Act. Those bills, I guess, didn't make the cut for this particular rules debate. I suppose we will take those up next week.

Madam Speaker, this House should be focused on addressing the consequential challenges of our time, not on political games and messaging bills.

How far this body has fallen. The same august Chamber where James Madison and Abraham Lincoln once served is now debasing itself, debating the fate of microwaves and toaster ovens because that is how House Republicans have decided to spend their time and their majority.

My colleagues, regrettably, unfortunately, are out of touch with the priorities of the American people. The

American people expect, rightfully so, for this Chamber to address the issues that they care about, not waste time on nonsense bills.

By the way, Madam Speaker, the rest of the measures that we will consider today, unfortunately, are more of the same. H.R. 7109, the so- called Equal Representation Act, is plainly unconstitutional. Any plain reading of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment makes clear that this bill is unconstitutional. House Republicans are pushing forward anyway.

Another bill that we are considering today is yet another CRA, this time on apparently a bulletin that was issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission. I have lost count of how many days we have wasted in the last 17 months considering CRAs. Every week, another CRA is submitted by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

One would have hoped, Mr. Speaker, that House Republicans would have learned their lesson a year ago after wasting our time on CRAs for the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat, that perhaps this House could focus its attention on more substantive matters. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the last bill that this body will consider this week, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, is a bill that I know is familiar to you, Mr. Speaker. It is to me. We voted on a rule about this particular bill 7 days ago.

Why is it back before us a week later? I will tell you why. Republican leadership has lost control of the Rules Committee. They lost control months ago. Now, they often lack a procedural majority here on the House floor.

Last week, our colleague, Representative Leger Fernandez, introduced a motion to recommit. The motion to recommit was very simple. It pointed out the fact that the Republicans' mining bill would allow foreign adversarial nations to mine American land for free. What happened to that motion to recommit? It passed. Six Republicans joined every Democrat in supporting that motion to recommit.

Those familiar with ``Schoolhouse Rock!'' would understand that that means the bill goes back to committee, the House Committee on Natural Resources, where I serve, Mr. Speaker, and where you serve, so that we could work out the issues that this body, on a bipartisan basis, identified with this bill 7 days ago. Instead, House Republicans have brought the very same bill back to this body for its consideration without going to the Natural Resources Committee.

I have no idea how the six Republicans who voted for the motion to recommit last week can possibly defend or rationalize a vote against the motion to recommit this week. I suppose we are going to find out.

Mr. Speaker, there are better ways for this Chamber to be spending its time. I implore the Speaker and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Let's get serious. Let's work together to address some of the consequential challenges that face our respective States and our country. Let's stop with these nonsense bills. I implore you.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Just two quick points. One, with respect to everything that my colleague from New York just articulated, this bill has nothing to do with noncitizens voting. It does not address that whatsoever. I am not sure what bill the gentleman from New York was talking about, but it is not the bill that this body is considering.

Secondly, I would just say, with respect to comments made by my friend from Indiana, I think she used the phrase ``woke agenda.'' Apparently, appliances are now woke, according to my colleagues. I don't know what a woke microwave or a woke refrigerator looks like, but that is the new target of House Republicans.

It is good to know we are going to be spending hours on the floor this week debating the future of woke microwaves. The House Republican agenda is coming to a home near you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I would just simply say that insofar as my colleague from Indiana wants to have a debate about climate change or a debate about electric vehicles or renewable energy, I am certainly open, and I welcome that debate. I suspect it would be a robust one.

That is not the debate that Republicans have initiated on the House floor. The debate this week is about freedom for refrigerators. Again, these are not bills that we conceived of. They are Republican bills.

So the notion that this debate is focused or centered on some of what the gentlewoman from Indiana described is just not consistent with the bills that are actually before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

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

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, the argument made by my colleague from Indiana with respect to the last argument made, the supposed legal argument, is completely without merit. It contravenes the plain language of the 14th Amendment and generations of precedent. So the notion that somehow the arguments we are making to follow the plain text of the Constitution and the way in which the 14th Amendment has been construed for generations, that that argument would not govern

this particular debate to me just doesn't hold water.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure every woman has full access to essential reproductive healthcare including abortion care.

Far too many States have enacted laws to either ban some or all abortions which Republicans have declared numerous times is their goal.

So while my Republican colleague wants to debate freedom and choice when it comes to household appliances, microwaves, I will give them a chance here today to instead ensure freedom and choice in reproductive healthcare for women across this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, to discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), who has been a tireless leader on this issue among so many others from California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a respected member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, this is not particularly complicated. Since 1790 and the first population tally done in the United States, citizens and noncitizens have been included. Never before has the 14th Amendment been construed as the way that the gentlewoman from Indiana proposes now. It is a radical view that is not supported by the plain text of the Constitution or the amendments thereof.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Mr. Speaker, not to belabor the point, but when the gentlewoman from Indiana uses the phrase ``current practice,'' what she is referring to is the entirety of American history.

Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. For hundreds of years, this is the way population counts have been done. That is why the current practice is consistent with the plain reading of the 14th Amendment, a plain reading of the Constitution, and hundreds of years of precedent. What House Republicans are proposing is a radical departure from it.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule is, unfortunately, a testament to the House Republican playbook since assuming the majority--chaos, political theater, and infighting. This Republican-controlled House has passed the lowest number of laws for the first year of session in nearly 100 years. It is safe to say it is the least productive Congress in any of our lifetimes.

House Republicans have been focused on other priorities: A baseless, politically motivated impeachment inquiry into the President that went nowhere; impeachment proceedings against the Secretary of Homeland Security, which were immediately dismissed by the Senate, the first time that the Senate has dismissed Articles of Impeachment without trial after the reading; and now microwaves, freedom for refrigerators, and liberty for laundry.

That is the focus of this House Republican majority. It makes sense that Republicans would spend their time on such ridiculous legislative efforts given the chaos that the majority has engulfed this body into-- the vacating of the Speaker 7 months ago, seven rules that have failed on the House floor as Republicans engage in open rebellion against their own leadership.

The American people are tired, Mr. Speaker, of the political stunts and the messaging bills. They are tired of the infighting. They want to see leadership, and that, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what they have seen through the leadership of Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and a united House Democratic Caucus.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that House Democrats have rescued this failing House Republican majority at nearly every turn. It was House Democrats who ensured that the U.S. didn't default on its debt last year, House Democrats who kept the government funded, House Democrats who carried the votes on the NDAA, and House Democrats who got the national security supplemental bill across the finish line and to the President's desk.

At every opportunity, Mr. Speaker, House Democrats have used this Chamber to stand against legislation that would hurt average Americans. While House Republicans are busy fighting each other, House Democrats are fighting for the American people, and we will continue to do that each and every day. We implore our Republican colleagues to join us.

One way my colleagues could do so is to oppose the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bills, and we implore them to do the same.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8772, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act of 2025.

Before I discuss the bill, Mr. Chair, let me start by taking a moment to thank our colleague, Jennifer Wexton, who represents Virginia's 10th District, for her unwavering dedication and service in this Congress. I am in awe of her courage and wish her and her family all the best. We will miss Ms. Wexton all over Congress here. She has been an exemplary Member of this House, and we trust that her legacy will be forever cemented in this House. We thank Ms. Wexton for all that she does, her courage, her resilience, her honesty, and her commitment to the American people.

I thank also my colleague, Chairman Valadao, and the subcommittee staff who work daily to ensure the legislative branch has the resources that it needs to support America and its people. Really, this work is so important to our Nation.

As the chairman indicated, the bill before us today includes $5.5 billion in

discretionary appropriations to fund the offices of the House of Representatives and joint legislative branch items. This is an increase of 3.5 percent from fiscal year 2024 enacted levels.

I agree with the chairman when he says this bill provides the resources for Congress to serve their constituents and conduct our oversight responsibilities.

The funding in this bill is reasonable and continues the operations for legislative branch agencies.

However, Mr. Chairman, the legislative branch bill should never be a place for divisive politics. The legislative branch bill should be used to ensure Congress has the tools, the necessary tools, it needs to legislate and support the constituents we serve in a fair, transparent, and equitable manner.

Instead, and unfortunately, this bill contains some very concerning messaging provisions that have absolutely no place within the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act.

This bill contains provisions that eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and allows for discrimination towards the LGBTQI+ community.

The majority seems obsessed with cutting Federal funding and eliminating programs that help fight climate change and those that help grow and diversify our country.

For example, this bill removes a provision to eliminate or reduce plastic waste right here in this legislative branch of government. We should start by leading with our own example. To save the planet, we should start right here in our House. In addition, it eliminates a requirement for Members to lease low-emissions vehicles.

As we face a tremendous heat wave, I challenge anybody to walk back to Longworth or Rayburn three or four times today to see how much of a challenge it will be. Yet, we don't want to accept the provisions that were enacted before to have climate change impact provisions in the bill.

Plus, this bill does not include longstanding legislation allowing the legislative branch agencies to employ individuals with an employment authorization document under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program, DACA.

This House and the many agencies that make up the entire legislative branch of government should make every effort to reflect and consider all the people in this great Nation we serve and the many districts our Members represent.

Mr. Chair, the legislative branch bill should represent a collaboration between our two parties. We come to this campus to work together. That is what the American people expect and deserve. Our place of business is to be a role model for a more equitable, inclusive, and positive working environment.

Instead, this bill includes hurtful and offensive provisions to many Americans, including our very own staff supporting this great institution and those we work alongside daily.

I don't agree with these divisive ideas, and for that reason, Mr. Chairman, for that reason alone, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished ranking member of the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise again to oppose this bill. This bill contains many, many poison pills and partisan riders that are unnecessary--really unnecessary--and aim to do more harm than good.

In addition, I am disappointed the bill, as currently written, does not include bipartisan language that has been supported by both sides of the House for years to allow the legislative branch agencies to employ individuals under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program known as DACA. An overwhelming majority of Americans support the DACA program.

Let me remind you, Mr. Chair, that 75 percent of Americans favor permanent legal status to noncitizens who came to the United States as children. Moreover, 85 percent of DACA recipients already participate in the labor force. It is unconscionable that we will not allow them to work in the legislative branch.

Let me remind you that during the pandemic, more than 200,000 Dreamers stepped up to the front line and served as essentials workers to provide fellow Americans with important goods and services, including medical care, educational instruction, food, and more.

For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to the committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.

My amendment would include language permitting the funds in the act to be used to employ individuals with employment authorization documents under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program known as DACA.

I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of the amendment.

Mr. Espaillat moves to recommit the bill H.R. 8772 to the

Committee on Appropriations with the following amendment:

At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the

following:

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, in closing, let me repeat: The legislative branch bill should not be the place for divisive politics. It should be used solely to ensure Congress has the tools that it needs to legislate and support the constituents we all serve. It should be used to ensure we have a successful democracy through effective and responsible governance.

The majority, again, is obsessed with cutting Federal funds and eliminating vital programs that help to grow and diversify our country.

Passing these partisan bills is a complete waste of time. I don't agree with these divisive ideas and partisan tactics. I believe we can do and should really do much better. For these reasons, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this is the way government should work. I agree with the chairman, and I join the chair and rise in opposition to this amendment.

At a time when international conflicts are on the rise, it is vital for America to lead and spread democracy. In fact, for 25 years, the Congressional Office for International Leadership has sponsored political and civic leaders of participating countries to exchange democratic best practices and encourage mutual understanding.

In 2023, COIL brought 532 rising leaders from 24 countries to these United States, facilitated meetings with more than 100 congressional offices, and showcased 62 American communities in 37 States, Mr. Chairman.

Eliminating this program is another attempt to divide us further and prevent our country from doing what it does best, leading by example.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Isolation is not a political tool that should

be exploited at this time when we face international conflicts, and they are on the rise. Mr. Chairman, I am glad that we are both on the same side on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. These policies should be debated in a different context on a different bill. However, I will debate this since the Congressman is addressing the issue.

Wearing a mask can help lower the risk of virus transmission and can save lives.

Here we go again. Since 2021, according to the CDC, we have lost over 1.2 million lives in these United States due to COVID-19. According to the World Health Organization, we lost over 7 million people across the globe. People are still contracting the disease. As of this past April, there were 22 million active cases.

Vaccines and masks are for the safety of self and others. COVID-19 and other viral illnesses significantly impact and strain our hospital and healthcare workers.

We have come a long way in protecting ourselves against COVID. We have more tools now to combat the deadly disease. However, creating a law that would limit our use of health mandates is shortsighted. Congress' health mandates are guided by the recommendations of our very own Attending Physician who coordinates with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Under this amendment, agencies would be limited in which tools they could use to ensure the health of Members, staff, and visitors, our own constituents who come to the campus in the face of a pandemic.

This amendment undermines public health and our ability to ensure the safety of our Capitol complex for all of us.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1455, providing for the House's consideration of seven pieces of legislation.

First, the rule provides for H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, to be considered under a structured rule.

Second, the rule provides for H.R. 4790, the Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Third, the rule provides for H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Fourth, the rule provides for H.R. 5179, the Anti-BDS Labeling Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, and H.R. 5717, the No Bailouts for Sanctuary Cities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation, beginning with H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act.

As a Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we have spent countless hours addressing the serious issues within higher education under the Biden administration, where activism is often prioritized and differing viewpoints are silenced.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary, as we have seen waves of anti-Semitic protests where students are supporting terrorist organizations, and these protests are sweeping the Nation.

Too many institutions of higher education have cowered to the mob of protesters, often compromising the safety and well-being of their students. Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses nationwide, and it is our students who are paying the price.

This mindset weakens what has historically been the strength of America: free-flowing and open debate at our institutions of learning. We must not let campus activists, woke faculty, and partisan administrators turn post-secondary education into DEI indoctrination camps. Denying speech undermines the very fabric of the Nation and is against everything our Founders intended.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation includes my Students Bill of Rights Act of 2024, which aims to address the erosion of First Amendment rights faced by students, and provides protections for academic freedom and expression.

Our students should never feel afraid to express their point of view or fear retribution or negative consequences for their future.

This woke mind virus doesn't stop there, which brings me to H.R. 5339, the Protecting American Investments from Woke Policies Act. It protects the retirement savings of workers, retirees, and their families by rolling back woke ESG requirements that have nothing to do with the bottom line.

The bill ensures that financial institutions are focused on maximizing returns in retirement plans rather than advancing the Biden- Harris administration's radical agenda at the expense of American workers. Forcing often underperforming and relatively high-risk investments on our seniors is not what they are asking us to do in this Chamber.

In this spirit, I am glad the bill includes one of my pieces of legislation, the Retirement Proxy Protection Act. The bill ensures that fiduciaries prioritize economic interests of plan beneficiaries when voting on shareholder proposals.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, a comprehensive bill package targeting unelected bureaucrats.

Time and time again, this administration has prioritized, again, an ESG agenda and initiatives that are against the well-being of workers and American businesses.

Democrat-appointed bureaucrats are attempting to use regulation to create climate and social policy in our financial markets, ultimately raising costs and limiting growth.

This legislation aims to stop unnecessary political reporting requirements for companies, make Federal regulators more transparent, and reduce the SEC's power over shareholders.

I am proud that another one of my bills, the No Expensive, Stifling Governance Act, or No ESG Act, is included as part of this package.

I will also touch on a bill brought forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), my friend, H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Despite the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stating that no restrictions can be placed on communication between local or State authorities and Federal immigration officials about someone's immigration status, many cities still choose not to comply.

We have known for years that sanctuary cities create incredible challenges for Federal law enforcement, and in doing so, public safety is endangered.

Let's take Aurora, Colorado, for example. They are experiencing unprecedented gang violence due to a neighboring sanctuary city.

We also know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a master class in how to not handle border security. This administration has totally failed, alongside the sanctuary cities, in enforcing our immigration laws because the crime that finds a home in a sanctuary city spreads to other jurisdictions.

If sanctuary cities choose to operate this way and endanger their own communities, neighboring communities, and, ultimately, the entire Nation, then they must be forced to balance their irresponsible choices with the loss of other Federal support. It is pretty simple: If you fail to comply with the law, you should not expect support.

Our constituents understand and also demand that their tax dollars not support sanctuary cities that actively undermine their public safety and our immigration law.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 136 to push back on EPA overregulation, H.R. 5179 to end anti-Israel boycotts, and H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women Act, which would crack down on crime caused by the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important bills, and I urge the passage of this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague and the chair of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I note that what my colleague, the ranking member, does not note is that this House has passed under Republican leadership more than 300 bills out of the House of Representatives with 92 percent bipartisan support. Many of these bills go to the Democrat- controlled Senate where they die.

The ranking member also likes to criticize this majority when he knows full well just last Congress when he was chair, the Rules Committee was no bastion of an open process.

For the record, here are some statistics that might help paint a better picture and provide context for the cherry-picked numbers the Member rattled off.

It is true there have been more closed rules, but this majority has reported nearly twice the amount of bills in the last Congress. Considered as a percentage, this majority has reported fewer closed rules than when he had the gavel.

Even more, over a third of the closed rules were because no amendments

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

Not considering those closed rules brings us still at roughly the same rate as a percentage of closed rules from the last Congress but with significantly more bills offered.

I also remind this body that the previous Congress saw the use and abuse of partisan en bloc amendment votes, which created omnibus-style amendments designed to defeat Republican, or tough amendments, and had the practical effect of stifling the Republican minority.

Even with this procedural atrocity, the ranking member still can't claim a higher ground on making minority amendments in order.

We also needed to keep up with the onslaught of regulations from the Biden-Harris administration that they have unleashed on the American people from unelected bureaucrats.

We have considered numerous disapproval resolutions, which traditionally are carried closed because of how they are written. The ranking member carried on this tradition when he had the gavel.

While the ranking member wants to talk about how we are stifling Democrat amendments, this majority has actually made more minority amendments in order as a percentage than the previous Congress when he was calling the shots.

While the ranking member shakes his finger at the majority for the way this Congress has gone, I point out that he understands the unique difficulties and the tough decisions the Rules Committee is tasked with in moving the majority's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, twice in the last week, President Biden has suggested that inflation was 9 percent when he took office and claimed credit for bringing it down. The Washington Post gave him a rating of four Pinocchios for that very tall tale. In reality, inflation in January of 2021 was 1.4 percent. As of this month, prices have increased 20 percent since then. By one estimate--listen to this-- the average U.S. household has to spend an additional $1,074 every month to keep up the same standard of living they had when President Biden took office.

The numbers don't lie, and neither do the American people. They know nonsense when they hear it.

A 32-year-old engineer from Nevada who voted for the President in 2020 told reporters he is frustrated with the way the White House frames the economy. Here is what he had to say:

It is concerning to me when I keep seeing press come out of

the White House where they keep saying the economy is good.

That is really weird because I am paying more on taxes and

more on groceries and more on housing and more on fuel. So

that doesn't feel good.

Small business owners in particular have been hard hit by increased prices. They have smaller margins to absorb the increased cost for materials, labor, and other operating expenses, and they risk losing customers every time they raise their prices.

One small business owner in New York, a fourth-generation roofer, reported:

We've increased more in the last four years than we had in

10. . . . We don't have a choice.

The owner of a small printing company in Washington State described painful price hikes as ``death by a thousand paper cuts.'' He went on to say:

People are tired of price increases. . . . We are tired of

price increases.

That is that. The American people are tired of price increases, they are tired of lies about it, and it is safe to say they are tired of Bidenomics.

China

Mr. President, on another matter, this week, Putin is in Beijing attending what Russia and China have called a ``friendship without limits,'' but last week, it was President Xi who took to the road, and, notably, his warmest welcome was in Budapest, Hungary.

The visit from PRC's leader came as more of our European NATO allies are waking up not only to the harsh reality of Russian aggression but also to the linked threats facing Western security and prosperity, to the urgent requirements of defense production, and to the particular challenge the PRC poses as a systemic rival.

But Hungary? Not so much. Viktor Orban's government has cultivated the PRC as its top trading partner outside the EU.

It has given Beijing sweeping law enforcement authorities to hunt dissidents on Hungarian soil.

It was the first European country to join Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative, which other European governments--for example, like Prime Minister Meloni's in Italy--have wisely decided to leave.

Hungary has doubled downed on Huawei. After the previous U.S. administration went to great lengths to encourage Europe to reject it, Hungary has let the PRC communications giant bake Chinese technology into the country's 5G expansion. Even as other European nations are paying vast sums to extract Huawei from their communications infrastructure, Hungary is now home to Huawei's European regional logistics hub--a veritable gateway to the West.

Last week, Prime Minister Orban's government signed 19 more agreements with the PRC, from transportation infrastructure to potential nuclear cooperation.

A joint statement described the two countries' relationship as ``an all-weather comprehensive strategic partnership'' that is between Hungary and the PRC.

But the details of China's growing influence in Budapest should raise red flags for anyone seriously concerned about strategic competition with China.

From across the Atlantic, there is good reason to appreciate a European government that is willing to question EU orthodoxy on things like shortsighted climate change policy or swim upstream in defense of conservative values. But here in Washington, we are obliged to evaluate whether allies and partners share our interests, not just our values. And whatever their pluck in dealings with EU bureaucrats in Brussels, Hungary's leaders have cozied up to America's greatest strategic adversary.

Now, it is one thing that a latter-day Walter Duranty who shills for Putin on Twitter might also admire the only NATO member whose leader flies to Moscow to pay obeisance to the Russian dictator, but Hungary's willingness to serve as China's doormat to Europe--that part is tougher to square with the position of folks in Washington for whom singular focus on China has recently become an article of faith.

The Democratic Party's increasing willingness to abandon Israel cries out for frequent and heavy doses of reality and harsh criticism. Unfortunately, so does this increasingly muddled logic on the threats facing the West from Russia and China.

A NATO government that fawns over a Russian neo-Soviet imperialist, a European nation that rolls out the red carpet for greater predation, coercion, and espionage from a communist regime--this isn't where America should be taking our foreign policy cues.

How about sending a high-profile diplomat and trade missions to Tehran? Hungary's voluntary legitimization of the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism? I don't think conservatives had any time for those who suck up to Iran. Maybe aligning with autocrats is in Hungary's interest, but let's return from Budapest and discuss what is in America's interest.

America has an interest in strong allies who are willing to pull more of the weight of collective defense in the face of threats from Russia, Iran, and China. We could have welcomed two more such allies to our ranks much sooner if not for Orban's obstruction of Sweden and Finland's accession to NATO. Not only do these countries

have robust defense industries and capable militaries, they also each have companies that offer safer alternatives to Chinese 5G technology.

And while many of us in Washington were urging the EU to do more to support Ukraine, Hungary--Hungary--was blocking the greater EU burden- sharing. Frankly, Hungary stands at the crossroads of three powers bent on undermining our security and prosperity. And the Orban government is modeling what not to do in the face of these challenges.

My message to America's European allies has been the same, no matter their politics or their culture: Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea are working together to undermine us. And we need to move faster to rebuild the hard power we need to deter and defeat aggression and hold one another accountable to share the burden of collective defense. There is plenty of work left to do on this front.

Anti-Semitism

Mr. President, now, one final matter, earlier this week, I discussed the growing problem of BDS; that is ``Bibi derangement syndrome.'' Of course, there is an older and similarly noxious form of BDS: the ``Boycott, divest, and sanction'' movement. This other BDS has been incubating on college campuses for the last decade, and right now, it is making news at Harvard.

This is unfortunate, but at this point, it shouldn't surprise anyone. Remember, Cambridge, MA, was ground zero for the current wave of anti- Semitism sweeping so-called elite education.

Not to be outdone by the ``restorative justice'' being meted out by their rival to the south, Princeton, Harvard leaders have announced their own sort of amnesty for the Hamas-supporting radicals who have harassed and intimidated fellow students in recent months.

In exchange for dispersing from Harvard Yard, the interim president and the dean will be meeting with the Crimson Red Guards ``to hear their perspectives on academic matters relating to longstanding conflicts in the Middle East.''

The interim president also acknowledges ``the profound grief'' people feel over ``the effects of the ongoing war.'' And the campus' Hamas sympathizers will also receive a meeting with a top official from the Harvard Corporation to address questions about the university's endowment.

``Boycott, divest, sanction''--BDS. It seems that the lesson at our country's oldest university is this: Lawless radicalism works. Perhaps it is time for the American people to boycott, divest, and sanction the Ivy League.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on H.R. 8772, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer H.R. 8772. The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for 2025.

The recommendation for the fiscal year 2025 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act provides $5.546 billion, excluding Senate items, which are traditionally left to the Senate to determine. The bill supports the legislative branch as an essential branch of government and ensures the House is open to and works for the American people.

Regardless of what side of the aisle you are on, we can agree that our greatest duty is to our constituents and that this bill funds our ability to advocate on their behalf. It invests in the resources necessary to provide robust oversight of the executive branch. It also includes modest increases to ensure the safety of the Capitol complex and the work of the Capitol Police as well as the institutions that support our work such as the Library of Congress and the Government Accountability Office.

I believe the bill balances the legislative branch's capacity to effectively serve the American people in a fiscally responsible manner.

I thank Chairman Cole for his leadership and guidance throughout this process, and I also thank Ranking Member Espaillat for his cooperation and support throughout the formation of the bill. Finally, I thank the legislative branch staff for their hard work in getting the bill to this point.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to close, I and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I oppose my friend's amendment because I do not believe all the good the Congressional Office for International Leadership has done for Congress over the last 25 years should be negated by one embassy programming selection.

The Congressional Office for International Leadership links Members of Congress to leaders in Eurasia and Asia and is an instrument for Americans engaged in citizen diplomacy.

COIL's place as the only regularized international exchange program in the legislative branch provides opportunities for Members of Congress and their constituents to engage with their peers from countries of strategic importance to the United States.

COIL convenes congressional leadership and its constituents to provide foreign visitors with a multilevel State, Federal, and local introduction to American democratic governing systems and accountable governance.

This is the next generation of government and civic leaders where they begin, in the Halls of the most powerful legislative body in the world, the United States Congress.

The exchange establishes a personal and profound connection between leaders from around the world, providing unique and meaningful insights and experiences while fostering a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect.

Thousands of Americans across the country benefit from hosting COIL participants in their homes and communities. The agency provides an important service for a very modest amount of money.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment as written.

The amendment would prohibit the use of all Architect of the Capitol electric vehicles and equipment, which are used for facility and ground maintenance activities.

For example, the Capitol Visitor Center's electric shuttles provide transportation to those needing mobility assistance while they are visiting the Capitol. Over the past year, Visitor Services provided over 33,000 shuttle rides for the elderly and disabled constituents and visitors to the campus.

These electric vehicles, currently in good working condition, would need to be replaced which would require a significant initial outlay of funds and would cause exposure to engine exhaust and noise for the equipment that would then have to be used indoor and in the buildings that we work in.

In addition to AOC operations, this would also adversely affect Members and House staff who pay to use the power from receptacles in the House garages.

Due to these adverse impacts, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again, I think it is important to remind folks at home watching that these are all-electric vehicles in the building. So for the 33,000 people who required shuttle assistance to get around the Capitol, elderly and disabled people who needed assistance to visit their building that their tax dollars are paying for, there are a lot of services.

As the amendment is written currently, I have to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. Many of my colleagues are highly frustrated by the way the attending physician managed the COVID pandemic here in Washington. I am one of them.

I understand, but I do not agree that decreasing the funds of the Office of the Attending Physician will reduce the actual attending physician's salary.

To do that, how the United States Navy pay structure works needs to be changed. We are paying a nonnegotiable reimbursement to the Navy, and that is the way this process works. This will not affect the attending physician's salary.

I make clear that what this amendment will do is dramatically reduce the medical services provided to the people who work, visit, and protect this campus. For this reason, I cannot support this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, in the event that this amendment was to pass, emergency services that run throughout the Capitol complex would continue, as would the security initiatives. Members would not see a change in their service, as Members are the first priority of the Office of the Attending Physician.

However, the Office of the Attending Physician would decrease services to staff, security forces, and visitors to the campus. Medicines and immunizations for official travel would be limited only to Members. The staff required to travel on official business would have to find other means of preparation on their own time and with personal funds.

The same would be true for seasonal influenza shots. It would be limited to Members and not to staff or security forces. In addition, over-the-counter medications and lower-cost durable medical equipment for health units would not be replaced.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.J. Res. 109, which if passed would undermine the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to protect people who buy cryptocurrency.

Today, Republicans want to override President Biden's veto and block the SEC from setting accounting standards for companies that hold digital assets, like crypto, on behalf of their customers. This resolution is part of a long list of efforts by industry and its allies to attack the good work of the SEC, which has made significant progress in protecting investors; maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitating capital formation.

Preserving the power of the SEC to protect investors and our markets is now more important than ever, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling in Loper v. Raimondo, which, by overturning Chevron deference, has now undermined the authority of the SEC and other Federal agencies.

The SEC staff accounting bulletin, SAB 121, is an informal guidance intended to clarify confusion raised by market participants. One prong of SAB 121 that would be repealed by today's resolution is about giving the public disclosures to increase transparency about these cryptoassets.

This kind of transparency helps prevent the kind of fraud and mishandling of crypto that led to the collapse of companies like FTX and a dozen other crypto firms that were handling and safeguarding customers' assets.

The second part of SAB 121's guidance advises companies to record cryptoassets as liabilities on their balance sheets and to ensure those liabilities correspond to the fair value of the cryptoassets they are obligated to safeguard.

This ensures that the company providing custody has sufficient resources to secure these assets for the users against any loss or misuse. The SEC has explained that this guidance is prudent due to the unique risk and uncertainties associated with cryptoassets. These risks include hacks, theft, and technical failures.

SEC's guidance simply says a firm that safeguards cryptoassets on behalf of customers should account for these unique crypto risks by recording these assets on its balance sheet as a liability. These safeguards would be completely undermined by passing H.J. Res. 109.

The crypto industry and its allies have long chided the SEC for not providing enough clarity over how cryptoassets should be regulated. However, SAB 121 directly addressed industry uncertainty. It is just that the industry didn't like the answer they got.

Should H.J. Res. 109 come into law, it would not only eliminate SAB 121's helpful guidance, but it would also permanently block the agency's ability to do anything substantially similar in this area in the future.

One special interest group representing large custody banks has provided the SEC with targeted modifications to SAB 121, which would avoid the sledgehammer effect of this legislation. I understand that the SEC may be close to reaching an agreement on these modifications, which would ensure that well-regulated entities, like custody banks, can offer crypto custody services consistent with SAB 121. Nevertheless, despite the fact that this issue will soon be moot, Republicans are pushing ahead anyway with this blunt and overly broad approach.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this veto override, and I reserve the balance of my time.

If I may respond to the gentleman.

As I said when I made the presentation, they are close to working out the deal with SAB and the custody bank.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

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

Madam Speaker, no matter what is said, this is about overriding the President's veto. My colleagues argue that SAB 121 undermines the investor protection by discouraging crypto firms and other entities from providing custody services.

However, the numbers show this couldn't be further from the truth. According to figures provided by SEC staff, at least 10 U.S. firms are already offering SAB 121-compliant crypto safeguarding services. As of the end of last year, they were safeguarding close to $210 billion worth of crypto assets in a SAB 121-compliant way.

This just goes to show, despite all of the talk, that SAB 121 will lead to less companies wanting to safeguard crypto assets. There are, indeed, plenty of firms out there that are doing so in compliance with this staff accounting bulletin.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

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

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this effort to override the President's veto of H.J. Res. 109. If passed, Congress would block the SEC from providing much-needed and timely clarity to our markets.

We would also be preventing the SEC from ensuring companies that hold crypto on behalf of Americans take the necessary care to ensure those holdings are transparent and accounted for.

For all of the handwringing about the lack of regulatory clarity in the crypto space, it is baffling to me how the industry wants to make it harder for the SEC to use one of the primary mechanisms it has to provide clarity around crypto: Staff guidance and accounting bulletins.

H.J. Res. 109 is a sledgehammer when what may be needed to address concerns is a scalpel. CRA resolutions, as these are referred to, not only overturn the agency guidance that is the subject of the resolution, but also prevents the SEC from issuing any substantially similar guidance in the future. In essence, even if the SEC wanted to offer clarity around crypto custody in the future, they would no longer be able to do so.

If Republicans want to address the issue previously raised by custody banks, Members could have done that, but now my colleagues have put forth a bill that causes broad harm not only to the SEC, but all the people and companies that rely on the agency to maintain safety and stability.

Madam Speaker, I call on all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this dangerous measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.