H.Res. 1194

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6192, legislation that actually should be titled the Republicans raising energy bills on American families act, because that is exactly what this bill does.

This bill is just the latest in the Republicans' polluters over people agenda that will drive up annual energy costs on hardworking American families.

Now, this bill is a blatant attempt by House Republicans to derail the successful and effective energy conservation program. Energy efficiency standards save Americans money on their energy bills, boost innovation by modernizing appliances for the future, and reduce greenhouse gas pollution in our ongoing efforts to combat the climate crisis.

American families, Mr. Chair, are already saving up to $500 a year on utility bills thanks to the energy efficiency standards that are already in place. The Biden administration has been busy with additional actions that will collectively save Americans $1 trillion over the next 30 years.

Setting energy efficiency standards is something that the Department of Energy is required by Congress to do. The Biden administration has been busy acting because the previous Trump administration refused to do its job and neglected to finalize 25 appliance efficiency standards.

H.R. 6192 takes an axe to energy conservation standards. It slows down the standard setting process. It allows future administrations to revoke existing standards and bans States from setting their own conservation standards.

If this bill were to become law, manufacturers will be faced with market uncertainty and a regulatory about-face every time the government changes hands. That is problematic for future innovation, particularly considering that many of the efficiency standards finalized by the Department of Energy were reached through consensus recommendations made by appliance manufacturers and efficiency advocates.

The Department of Energy has a robust process for setting efficiency standards, and this process works. All standards must be economically justified and technologically feasible.

Let me be clear--because we are likely to hear a lot of fear- mongering and misinformation today from my Republican colleagues-- energy efficiency standards are not bans and they do not impact existing appliances in Americans' homes. This legislation is nothing more than an attempt to scare consumers so Republicans can protect their polluter friends.

Now, instead of legislating on important, pressing issues, Republicans today are pushing a bill that will increase energy prices for American families. This Republican Congress is the least productive of any Congress since the Great Depression. This bill is only being brought to the floor because Republicans can't assemble the votes to actually accomplish anything for the American people. They talk about freedom for appliances but refuse to consider any legislation that would give women freedom over their reproductive health.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation because it will raise energy costs on American families, stifle American innovation, and exacerbate the climate crisis. It is time that Republicans stop wasting our time on partisan messaging bills that have no chance of becoming law.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), the ranking member of our Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), the chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), our Democratic leader.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

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

Mr. Chairman, Republicans have spent the last year and a half attacking all of the Biden administration's efforts to lower energy costs for American consumers.

Rebates for energy efficient appliances to lower energy bills; Republicans are furious.

Incentives to spur investment in clean energy to drive down bills; Republicans attack that.

Efforts to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower gas prices for Americans; Republicans were incensed.

Forgive me, Mr. Chairman, but I just find it all too much, especially because not a single colleague of mine on the other side of the aisle has made as much as a peep since the Federal Trade Commission last week revealed that the CEO of the largest American independent producer of crude oil was colluding with OPEC to keep oil prices high.

That is the real scandal, Mr. Chairman: The CEO of an American company working together with representatives of the Saudi Government to raise prices for Americans. Even worse, he tried to persuade his competitors to do the same and drive the price of crude oil up to $200 per barrel in a display of naked greed.

If my Republican colleagues were serious about wanting to lower energy costs for Americans, they would hold hearings. They are in charge. They are in the majority. They should hold hearings and put legislation on the floor to deal with this scandal instead of standing here debating the freedom of appliances.

Mr. Chairman, Republicans claim they want to lower energy costs, but their actions speak louder than their words. They are beyond furious if you try to use technology to lower the energy consumption of household appliances and save Americans money, but a Big Oil CEO colluding with OPEC nations to pick American pockets, you would be hard pressed to get Republicans to care about that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to call out the problems that I have heard on the floor today from the other side of the aisle.

Republicans have claimed that they care about energy costs. They keep saying over and over again that they care about energy costs, but their actions and their vote shows that that is just not true.

The Biden administration's efficiency standards are estimated to save consumers $1 trillion over 30 years. That is $1 trillion.

Water heater standards will save American households $7.6 billion, refrigerator standards will save Americans $36 billion, and clothes washer and dryer standards will save Americans a combined $39 billion.

The bottom line is Republicans don't want Americans to realize those savings. They want Americans to be stuck with older, energy-guzzling appliances that cost more money every time you turn them on. I think it is ridiculous, and so should everyone else in this Chamber.

Republicans claim they are concerned about the higher upfront costs of these appliances, but 2 years ago when the Inflation Reduction Act was passed, which contained $9 billion in rebates and other investments in lowering the cost of energy-efficient appliances, well, Republicans all voted ``no,'' every one of them.

Let's review. The Republicans don't want to make positive economic investments because they are concerned about the up-front costs, but then they also refuse to take action to lower those up-front costs.

If you brought this mentality to the private sector, you would probably be fired in a heartbeat. That is the orthodoxy in today's Republican Party.

Lowering energy costs for consumers via efficiency gains used to be a bipartisan issue. These efficiency standards and the process for achieving them have been around for 50 years, and every so often, we have the Department of Energy both under Democrats and Republicans coming forward with efficiency standards.

We made real progress on this in 1992 and again in 2005, but somewhere along the way, Republicans decided to become the party of higher energy costs rather than the ones fighting for the American homeowners, and it is a real shame.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. This bill is going to raise energy costs. This bill is going to stifle innovation. This bill is going to do nothing, obviously, to address the climate crisis.

It is just going nowhere, and we are wasting our time when we could be doing things that are more important than addressing affordability for the American people.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, first, as I have already said, the Department of Energy must already ensure that energy conservation standards are economically justified, so this amendment is totally unnecessary.

Instead of being helpful, this amendment adds duplicative processes to a bill that already adds burdensome steps to the energy conservation program. It is all just messaging and designed to slow down rulemaking.

Also, it is interesting to me that we are even considering this amendment. The gentleman seems very confident that there will be any new or amended energy conservations; however, under this bill, I am not even sure that we will ever see any new standards.

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

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

Mr. Chair, the amendment amends the Energy Policy and Conservation Act with vague language that would likely be impossible to implement.

Additionally, this amendment is clearly designed to target environmental and clean energy groups. If this amendment is adopted, and if H.R. 6192 becomes law, it would slow down the Department of Energy rulemaking process and create additional hurdles to adopting energy conservation standards. It would overburden the Department of Energy staff, who would be tasked with identifying covered parties to ensure compliance. It creates loads of needless paperwork and is an unfunded mandate.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to recognize that this amendment is pure Republican messaging and would hinder climate action.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, apparently, Republicans don't realize that sometimes things can be a win-win.

Back in April, the Department of Energy finalized efficiency standards for distribution transformers, critical components for the electric grid. Because they are so ubiquitous, any improvements in efficiency from these transformers can translate to massive energy and cost savings.

Before the Department of Energy finalized the standard, it spent 15 months listening to everyone from steel and transformer manufacturers to utilities to homebuilders to everyday Americans and everyone in between. The Department of Energy took that feedback very seriously and produced a standard that met the criteria under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act: technologically feasible and economically justified. The final product they put out worked for everyone.

Don't take my word for it. Take the word of UAW Local 3303, which says that this final rule ``ensures a viable pathway for UAW-made steel to supply the transformer market long into the future.'' Talk to the United Auto Workers Region 9 director, who thanked the Department of Energy ``for listening to the voices of our members in Butler, Pennsylvania, and having a willingness to learn from our subject matter experts who actually make these products.''

You don't have to just listen to labor leaders on this, either. Listen to Cleveland-Cliffs, the manufacturer of the electrical steel that goes into transformers. They praised the rule and said they expect it to actually increase demand for their product, opening the possibility of future investments and plant expansion. Listen to the president of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, who thanked the Department of Energy for the flexibility that the final rule provided. Listen to the utilities that say this final rule provides stability and certainty while moving us toward vital efficiency goals.

The sponsors of this amendment should just turn around and listen to the Republican chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, my esteemed colleague from Washington State, who called the final rule encouraging.

Mr. Chair, you can go to one of the sponsors, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly), who just two weeks ago appeared at an event with the Secretary of Energy at Cleveland-Cliffs--again, a manufacturer of grain-oriented electrical steel--and celebrated the final rule and the jobs at Cleveland-Cliffs that the final rule will save. The press release from my colleague's office called the final rule on distribution transformers efficiency ``the right thing.''

I couldn't agree more, Mr. Chair. I am just not sure what made my colleagues change their minds in the last 2 weeks.

My point is, there is broad support behind this rule from all corners. If Republicans really cared about the transformer shortages utilities across the Nation are still suffering from, they would work with us to provide the necessary funding for the President's invocation of the Defense Production Act for transformers because that is something, unlike this amendment, that would really make a positive difference.

I really don't understand why this amendment is being offered. It makes no sense.

Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Let me say, Mr. Chair, again, the standards that have been established by the Department of Energy have broad support. The rule has broad support from all corners. I just don't understand how my Republican colleagues can say all of a sudden now that they are opposed to it.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1194, I call up the bill (H.R. 2925) to amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 to provide for security of tenure for use of mining claims for ancillary activities, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2925.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024.

In May 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision revoking an approved mine plan for the Rosemont Copper Mine project in Arizona.

This determination commonly called the Rosemont decision upended decades of regulatory precedent and specific U.S. Forest Service regulations that allow approvals of operation on or off a mining claim so long as these operations meet environmental and regulatory standards.

Essentially, this court's ruling puts the cart before the horse and fails to reflect the process of how a company actually develops a mine. I think there is some confusion about the mine approval process and what the term ``valid'' claim means.

First, when looking to develop a mine, an operator must submit something called a Mine Plan of Operations to the United States Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. This plan must include the intended uses of the surface of the mining claim, including those for waste rock placements, mills, offices, and roads.

The Mine Plan of Operations is key in determining the economic feasibility of a mining site, which, in turn, factors into the basis of determining which mineral deposits are commercially developable and, therefore, valid.

If allowed to stand, the Rosemont decision would require the discovery and determination of a valid mineral deposit, meaning that operators must prove the existence of a commercially developable deposit on a claim before a plan of operations can be approved.

Remember, a mine cannot move forward if the Federal Government does not approve any facet of the Mine Plan of Operations. Further, mineral validity cannot be determined until after the economic viability of a site--as is laid out in the Mine Plan of Operations--is verified by the Federal Government, as well.

H.R. 2925, Mr. Speaker, would reverse this backward determination of the court, allowing American mining to resume on Federal lands. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear: This bill will not allow mining companies to do whatever they want on public land. That is a fact.

Mining activity will not occur if any facet of a mine plan of operations has not passed our strict Federal guidelines and our strict environmental guidelines.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), my good friend, for his words of support for this legislation.

Again, this legislation would correct a misguided court decision revoking an approved mine for the Rosemont Copper Mine Project in Arizona.

Arizona produced the second-most amount of minerals in the United States in 2023. It also has over 30 million acres of Federal lands. If the Rosemont decision stands, over 40 percent of Arizona's lands will be taken offline in the U.S. in the battle to produce enough minerals to meet our ever-growing needs.

As a member of the Natural Resources Committee, the Democrats brought an expert forward, Madam Speaker, an anti-mining expert. In fact, she said we have to stop hard-rock mining because the reclamation process doesn't work. I invited her to our great State of Minnesota to show her a reclaimed mine where we have deer hunting, bears, eagles, bees, birds, haymaking. We have drinking water that comes from mines that are not in operation. We have recreation in our mines in Minnesota and elsewhere in this country.

This hard-rock mining expert said it is too dry in Arizona and too wet in Minnesota to mine. I asked where she would like us to mine these minerals for our national security. She said the quiet part out loud. She said nowhere. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to allow mining to happen in this country.

The Communist country of China was just mentioned. This administration today, Madam Speaker, is in consultation with Congo, where 15 of the 19 industrial mines use child slave labor owned by the Chinese Communist country.

The Biden administration is entering into memorandums of understanding to have critical minerals mined by child slave labor in Congo, where there are zero environmental standards and zero labor standards, to meet their green agenda, Madam Speaker. They are okay with that but will not allow mining to happen in this country that follows our environmental and labor standards.

The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, I live in the heart of mining country, and the best water in Minnesota is in the heart of mining country. We can drink it right out of the ground in Buhl, Minnesota.

I can tell you that this country better take part in mining domestically. Otherwise, we are going to find ourselves, Madam Speaker, in deep, deep trouble.

The Department of Energy and the Department of Defense say we need more domestic mining. We cannot rely on China and other adversarial nations. This is a simple fix.

We believe the court erred, so it is our job to re-legislate this part of mining that is so important to the United States of America. It is so important to our communities where we are blessed to have these natural resources.

For my good friends and colleagues from California, let's go back many years. California started on a gold rush. It began because of mining. Safe to say, we don't want to follow California much longer, with what is happening in that great State.

The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, I believe this is going to pass in a bipartisan fashion. It is a good piece of legislation. I look forward to passing it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The disastrous results of the Rosemont decision will redirect the huge amounts of capital needed to mine domestically to countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Indonesia.

When we choose this out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality approach to

mining, development flows to other nations with significantly lower environmental and labor standards. Indonesia, for example, is currently the world's largest nickel producer and its dominance is only expected to grow in the coming years.

Indonesian mining is accomplished with sweeping deforestation and pollution, many of which are financed, again, by the Chinese Communist Party. These operations consistently ignore environmental impacts on local communities and leave the land far worse off than they found it.

On the other hand, American mines, like this mine project in Nevada, adhere to the best standards in the world and are committed to restoring the land after minerals are extracted.

In fact, again, mines are not even permitted until the Federal Government approves a full Mine Plan of Operations, which must include a robust plan and financial assurance for reclamation after the project is complete.

Madam Speaker, this is simple. Either we do it here or we let foreign adversarial nations take over. This is a strategic national security interest.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Federal lands account for as much as 86 percent of the land area in certain Western States, and these same States account for 75 percent of our Nation's metals production.

The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act is needed to ensure that we have certainty of access to these essential mineral deposits.

If we want to encourage investment in safe, responsible, clean mining practices that provide billions in taxes that support our roads, bridges, schools, and other essential services, along with the essential materials to the American people, then we also need to support H.R. 2925.

Madam Speaker, really quick, you are hearing the other side of the aisle not necessarily debate the actual legislation. We have heard them talk about the process. When you can't debate the legislation, then you go after the process.

This is a very, very good piece of legislation, and I look forward to it passing in just the next hour or so.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let's be clear: There are no mines operating on Federal lands that are owned by the Chinese Communist Party. Zero. Zero. Anybody that mines in the United States will follow our environmental standards and our labor standards. It doesn't matter which company it is. They are going to follow our rules.

For this administration to turn a blind eye to the atrocities and the human rights violations to meet their green agenda, it is unconscionable. We can do it here in the United States with the best labor standards, the best environmental standards, with our technology, and be proud of these minerals that we produce. We can lead the rest of the world on how to do it. Nobody does it better than the United States of America and our workers, period.

Madam Speaker, let me address some of the misinformation we have heard about this bill. This bill does not allow mining companies to continue to operate under conditions that don't follow our labor and environmental standards.

If the outlandish circumstances that my friends on the other side of the aisle have been telling you will happen if this bill is enacted could have actually happened all along, including land lock-ups and subversion of environmental and governmental oversight, then why didn't it happen?

It is because the harm they claim this bill could inflict upon our Federal lands is actually not true. It is inaccurate.

This bill would, however, allow America to become a global leader in mineral production once again.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Governor of Nevada in support of H.R. 2925.

Office of the Governor,

May 1, 2024.

Hon. Dina Titus,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Steven Horsford,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Susie Lee,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives Titus, Horsford, and Lee: I write in

support of the Congressman Amodei's Mining Regulatory Clarity

Act of 2024 (H.R. 2925) and encourage you to vote in favor of

this critical bill when it reaches the House floor. In doing

so you will stand in solidarity with Senator Cortez Masto and

Senator Rosen, sponsors of the Senate companion bill (S.

1281), and the State of Nevada to support a key pillar of our

economy. Since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its

decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, also known as the Rosemont decision, the

future of hardrock mining in Nevada and the West has been

plagued by uncertainty. This matter must be favorably

resolved for the Silver State and bipartisan, bicameral

legislation must be signed by the

President to help ensure the economic viability of our robust

mining industry.

The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act (MRCA) simply reinstates

the contemporary mining policy and permitting practices that

were upended by the Rosemont decision. Contrary to the scare

tactics of critics, the MRCA does not open the door to

unrestricted use of public lands, block renewable energy,

recreation, or conservation, or allow mining in National

Parks, wilderness areas, and other special areas. Rather, it

provides much-needed business certainty and protects the

14,700 direct high-paying jobs and an additional 20,000

indirect jobs that are supported by the mining industry in

the state. In addition to providing employment with high,

family supporting salaries averaging over $100,000, the

industry provides $4.9 billion of our state's gross domestic

product and $12.7 billion in economic output.

Schools and local governments in each of your districts

also benefit from the $389 million the industry paid in state

and local taxes. More than half of the mining Net Proceeds of

Minerals (NPOM) tax revenue goes to the Nevada State

Education Fund. The other half goes to the county where the

minerals were produced. Gold and silver operators further

contribute to the State Education Fund through the Gold and

Silver Excise Tax, or Mining Education Tax which was

established during the 81st Nevada Legislative Session; and

in fiscal year 2023, contributed approximately $68 million to

the State. Beginning in fiscal year 2024, revenue from the

Mining Education Tax will go directly into the State

Education Fund. The Rosemont decision ends hardrock mining as

we know it and threatens the livelihoods and institutions

that rely on it.

Nevada is counting on you to unite and join Senators Cortez

Masto and Rosen and Congressman Amodei to provide certainty

to one of Nevada's critical industries. I look forward to

continuing to work collaboratively to ensure Nevada remains

well positioned as a leader in domestic mineral production,

from lithium and other critical materials to precious metals.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Joe Lombardo,

Governor.

Madam Speaker, I support fair labor standards, high environmental standards, and increasing our national security. In short, I support domestic mining. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same and support H.R. 2925.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2925, and I will remind my friends across the aisle that mining is already happening on American lands and on our public lands.

However, this week, instead of working on meaningful legislation on behalf of the American people, our friends have opted instead to focus on a toxic free-for-all on our public lands and have opted to focus on legislation to rollback energy efficiency in home appliances.

In fact, they put forward a bill this week called Hands Off Our Home Appliances because they are so concerned about the American people that they want to regulate the efficiency of their toasters, their dishwashers, their refrigerators, and undermine the ability of our immigrant and our Hispano communities to have representation in the United States Census and, yes, to allow a free-for-all on our public lands.

Now, the American people are not asking us to do this. They are asking us to work on real problems: to work on the economy, inflation, helping families put food on the table and a roof over their head, protecting our reproductive rights and access to the ballot box, protecting our democracy, and dealing with the international crises that are happening on multiple continents.

My question is: Why the heck are we back on the House floor one week after we voted, on a bipartisan basis, to send this bad bill back to committee when it couldn't even be supported on the floor once?

Yet here we are, and our friends are trying to pass it once again, without revision, without changes because they think they found a few extra spare votes.

Let's talk about mining laws. The existing mining law of 1872 already gives our mining companies, including foreign-owned companies, the right to extract on our publicly-owned lands. They can also do so without having to pay even one cent in royalties. That includes companies that are controlled by governments of adversarial nations.

This is not only a shameful giveaway, but a huge national security vulnerability for the United States. This bill is not about clarifying a court decision, it is about giving more minerals away to those who would like unfettered access to our public lands. It would give opportunities for multinational corporations and adversarial nations to control even more of our resources without having to pay royalties to the U.S. Government, and to tie up claims on our public lands, whether or not there are minerals actually present there.

This would make it impossible to invalidate a mining claim, even if their real intent was other things, maybe to lock up development on other uses or buying them for other uses, including construction of transmission lines or other things that they would want to do.

This should be of deep concern to anyone who does not want adversarial nations or the companies that operate in them to control our public lands or minerals.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that it is either mine here or mine abroad and create a false equivalency, but it is not that simple. Some of the countries that are trying to expand their mining operations here in the United States, in fact, many of these multinational corporations are owned as subsidiaries under countries like China and other countries that we have adversarial relationships with.

They also engage in practices that we know cause human rights abuses, things like slave labor elsewhere in the world. While my friends across the aisle have tried to claim that this is really about mining on American lands, it is about granting unfettered access to these corporations.

In fact, these entities can ship the minerals that they take from American lands anywhere in the world and smelt those materials on the cheap, often relying on human rights abuses abroad to cut costs.

As I said, we already had this debate last week. The outcome was the entire House, right here on this floor, voted to send this toxic bill back to the Natural Resources Committee. In fact, that hasn't happened in years because this bill was so flawed and such a giveaway to foreign national owned companies and a threat to our national security that it was agreed that it wasn't ready for prime time and shouldn't be passed on the floor.

My colleague from New Mexico, Representative Teresa Leger Fernandez, offered to send the bill back to committee so that we could discuss amending the bill to ban these adversarial corporations operating in adversarial nations from mining and locking up our public lands.

I have to say, I was heartened. We had six Republicans join the Democrats to do just that. They said they were not going to vote for that bill. Well, it was about time. We need some bipartisan support to double down on protecting U.S. interests.

In fact, as I said, it has been decades since the House sent a bill back to committee like that, but as we see today, here we are. Republican leadership is trying once again to get the bill passed through brute force without addressing serious concerns, without sending it back to committee, without going through due process. Here we are, debating it and about to take a vote again.

These concerns aren't new. Last year, the bill was included in H.R. 1. At that time, one of my Republican colleagues offered a very similar amendment banning mining on our public lands by foreign companies with records of human rights violations. We are literally talking about companies that have child slave labor records. That amendment passed through committee on a bipartisan basis, yet they stripped it out and are trying to pass the bill without it here today on the floor.

I find it absolutely jaw-dropping and extremely telling that this was the amendment that was stripped out of the bill and that we are back here a week later after this bill failed on the floor.

I think it is very clear what is going on here. This is really about advancing the interests of corporations, interests on our public lands, and opening them up for exploitation.

I think it is important that we talk about how outrageous this is. We have to ensure that our public lands are not open to our adversaries, to these multinational corporations that will exploit our minerals for free. We need some bipartisan action to make sure that that cannot happen.

We should be back in committee discussing the vulnerabilities, discussing the national security implications, discussing American competitiveness, discussing energy policy, not trying to jam through a bill that will violate human rights and international trade.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert my side eye, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

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

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2925, which rolls out the welcome mat to our foreign adversaries to exploit our minerals and violate human rights as well as national security.

We must defeat this bill. We did last week. We debated the merits. It is bad for America. It is bad for national security. It is bad for our economy. It is bad for American mining. It is bad for the environment, and that is why we must send it back.

Madam Speaker, I support the gentlewoman's motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, this accounting bulletin has proven to be a barrier to publicly traded banks having an ability to meaningfully engage in distributed ledger products due to their overly broad definition of a crypto asset. SAB 121 makes no distinction between asset types in use cases, but, instead, generally states that crypto assets pose certain technological, legal, and regulatory risks, requiring special on- balance-sheet treatment.

All other assets, if you want to make a deposit at a bank, they are glad to hold custody of the assets, but somehow these assets qualify for special treatment.

Normally, if there was on-balance-sheet treatment, it would also just be a clean entry. There wouldn't be a mark to mark it that would require not just a balance sheet treatment that would be appropriate for a custody of a certain kind of asset, but you would have income statement flow throughs and all kinds of other risks.

Why would a bank need to cover extra risk up to 100 percent of the deposit of an asset simply to take custody of the asset? This is a special treatment that applies just to these assets, so applying on- balance-sheet treatment for crypto assets wrongly subjects customer assets to creditors' claims in the event there was a failure of a custodial institution.

In a traditional bankruptcy, assets are accounted for on balance sheet and are subject to creditor claims. Conversely, assets held in custody for customers are accounted for off balance sheet and, thus, are protected from creditor claims in bankruptcy because they remain the assets of the company.

We would see this distinction in a company like Fidelity, where the assets are off balance sheet, versus a company like Silicon Valley Bank when they went bankrupt. The depositors were literally at risk. Why would we change the standard with this out-of-jurisdiction rulemaking by the SEC?

Requiring custody crypto assets to be accounted for on balance sheets risks losing the bankruptcy protections of custodial services. This is an important distinction from the treatment for a broker-dealer that would be subject to a different form of bankruptcy under the Securities Investor Protection Act. Distributor ledger technology does not change the underlying nature of risk of traditional assets, nor do they present risks that SAB 121 purports to address.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record three letters: A letter dated August 23, 2023, cosigned by Chairman McHenry and Representative Hill, sent to the Comptroller General at the Government Accountability Office, urging GAO to complete its assessment on whether the Congressional Review Act applies to SAB 121; a letter dated February 14, 2024, cosigned by the Bank Policy Institute, the American Bankers Association, the Financial Services Forum, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, sent to the SEC requesting a meeting with the SEC Chairman, Gary Gensler, urging him to reconsider SAB 121; and, lastly, a bipartisan, bicameral letter dated November 15, 2023, cosigned by five Representatives and two Senators, sent to the Federal Reserve, the OCC, the FDIC, NCUA, urging the agencies to withhold enforcement of SAB 121 in light of GAO's decision.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, August 23, 2023.

Re SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121 and the

Congressional Review Act

Hon. Gene Dodaro,

Comptroller General of the United States Government

Accountability Office, Washington, DC.

Dear Comptroller Dodaro: We write to inquire about the

status of the Government Accountability Office (GAO)'s

decision regarding the applicability of the Congressional

Review Act (CRA) to the Securities and Exchange Commission's

(SEC) Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121 (SAB 121). We are

concerned that SAB 121 is not guidance but rather should be

considered a major action undertaken by the SEC. This letter

underscores the request by Senator Lummis expressing her

shared concern about the effect of SAB 121. To date, GAO has

not rendered a decision.

To underscore Senator Lummis' position, SAB 121 should be

construed as a rule for purposes of the CRA. SAB 121 is not

an interpretive rule. It is not a general statement of

policy. Rather SAB 121 is a major policy change that

fundamentally impacts the way customer assets under custody

are treated for balance sheet purposes. The Bulletin

significantly impacts a number of entities within the SEC's

purview but also state and nationally chartered banks and

trust companies.

Separately, it is important to note that Congress continues

to make progress on legislation establishing a regulatory

framework to provide certainty for the digital asset

ecosystem. The Committee's work to report out legislation

governing both the issuance and use of payment stablecoins as

well as the regulation of digital asset intermediaries is

consistent with the recommendations made by GAO this past

June. This legislative work should not be subverted by

unelected bureaucrats through opaque and unaccountable

processes such as SAB 121.

We encourage you to protect the prerogatives of the

legislative branch by determining SAB 121 as a major rule and

subject to the CRA. We appreciate your attention to this

matter.

Sincerely,

Patrick McHenry,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services.

French Hill,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial

Technology, and Inclusion.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1194, I call up the bill (H.R. 7109) to require a citizenship question on the decennial census, to require reporting on certain census statistics, and to modify apportionment of Representatives to be based on United States citizens instead of all persons, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7109 has three components.

Number one, it requires the Census Bureau to include a citizenship question on the decennial census questionnaire.

Number two, the bill directs that this information be used to ensure fair representation by requiring only citizens be included in the apportionment base.

Number three, it has a severability clause.

Currently, the Census Bureau estimates the noncitizen population using data collected annually in the American Community Survey. We are going to call that ACS as I go, just to help you out. That data is not necessarily accurate.

Further, there are no reports that asking a citizenship question on the ACS every year suppresses illegal, alien, or other noncitizen participation on the ACS questionnaire.

The constitutionally iterated rationale for a decennial census is to apportion electoral districts for Congress.

In Commerce v. New York, the Supreme Court noted that a host of various questions over the years that are tangential to apportionment had been included in the decennial censuses, ``race, sex, age, health, education, occupation, housing, and military service,'' and ``radio ownership, age at first marriage, and native tongue,'' et cetera.

The citizenship question is no stranger to the Census questionnaire. Commerce also noted: ``Every Census between 1820 and 2000 (with the exception of 1840) asked at least some of the population about their citizenship or place of birth. Between 1820 and 1950, the question was asked of all households. Between 1960 and 2000, it was asked of about one-fourth to one-sixth of the population.'' That is another quote from the Commerce case.

This isn't a uniquely American practice. Even the United Nations recommends collecting citizenship information via a census, as noted by, again, the Commerce Court. Australia, Canada, France, Indonesia, Ireland, Germany, Mexico, Spain, and the United Kingdom ask about citizenship in their respective censuses.

Is the United States to be the only North American country not to inquire about citizenship in its Census protocols?

The Commerce Court held, regarding the positing of a citizenship question on the Census, as follows: ``In light of the early understanding of and long practice under the Enumeration Clause, we conclude that it permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary [of Commerce], to inquire about citizenship on the Census questionnaire.''

Section 2 of H.R. 7109 simply asks whether a person is a citizen of the United States, yes or no. That is it, but everyone gets counted.

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

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

As my friend knows, the Commerce case held specifically you can ask the citizenship question on the Census. That is true. You can do that. That is what we are proposing.

Additionally, he misstated the rationale on why the Commerce case went the way it did. They said you can ask the question, but that the Secretary had contrived his rationale and was in violation of the APA, and that is why that happened.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, of course, every single Democrat voted against the great border security bill, H.R. 2. That is how serious they are not. Every person is counted under this bill. Why can't we ask them what their citizenship is?

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I wish we were hearing not deflective statements but the actual truth here.

Here is the way it works. There is nothing in this bill that says you don't count everybody. You do count everybody. The thing they really don't want us to know is how many illegal aliens are in the country, so we are going to ask a citizenship question, which has been asked in 22 of 25 Censuses. They don't want that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 10 seconds to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).