Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I was unable to cast my votes for H. Res. 1215 and H.R. 6983.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 233, and YEA on Roll Call No. 234.

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 bill, H.R. 5403.

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

Today we are considering Majority Whip Tom Emmer's H.R. 5403, the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act. This bill is straightforward. It halts unelected bureaucrats from issuing a central bank digital currency, or CBDC.

We believe that a central bank digital currency would be detrimental to Americans' rights to financial privacy.

We have previously seen examples of governments around the world weaponizing the financial system against their own citizens.

For example, the Chinese Communist Party used a central bank digital currency to track spending habits of its citizens.

This data is being used to create a social credit system that rewards or punishes people based on their behavior.

This type of financial surveillance has no place in the United States. After all, we have the Bill of Rights, and they do not.

Concerningly, it appears that the current administration does not agree that financial surveillance has no place in the United States.

In 2022, the White House issued an executive order pushing for CBDC research and development. The corresponding report and the data related to the executive order the President issued does nothing to ease the concerns about financial snooping on citizens.

This is why the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act is necessary. The bill requires authorizing legislation from Congress for the issuance of any central bank digital currency, ensuring that it must reflect American values and civil liberties protections.

If not open, permissionless, and private, a central bank digital currency is no more than a CCP-style surveillance tool waiting to be weaponized.

I thank my friend, Whip Emmer, for his work on spearheading this legislation, along with Representatives Hill and Mooney for their leadership on this issue. I also thank Representative Davidson for his commitment to financial privacy in a larger context.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the majority whip, a great leader in the Financial Services Committee and an original actor in the space of cryptocurrency.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion, who had a great victory yesterday with 71 Democrats voting for his bill.

Madam Chair, in responding to the gentleman's arguments, I don't know where to begin. The civil liberties protections in the United States are evident. We have a court of law. We have a provision for law enforcement to go after bad actors. This bill has nothing to do with this. It is a direct question of whether or not the Federal Reserve should be able to track your money without having to go to the courts, just evident in the technology.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), the vice chair of the Digital Assets Subcommittee and the chair of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee. The gentleman is a great leader in digital assets and a thoughtful member of the committee.

Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self).

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Utah (Ms. Maloy).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), the chair of the Small Business Committee and a great leader for business in America, capitalism, and freedom.

Mr. Chair, I will note for the record a couple of key things.

Number one, this is private-sector innovation. That was yesterday's bill. Two-thirds of the House spoke in favor of private-sector innovation for digital assets. I know the ranking member of the committee did not, but we had 71 of her Democratic colleagues vote with almost all the Republicans yesterday for private-sector innovation on digital assets. I know she did not.

Today, what they want to do is have public-sector innovation. The regimes I spoke of yesterday, fostering private-sector innovation, are not going down the route of central bank digital currency. I want to note that for the record.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), the chair of the Science Committee and a great leader on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I would note for the record that bow ties are cheaper than the long ties. I suggest the same to the gentleman.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chair of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood), a leader in digital assets.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that this bill protects Americans' rights to financial privacy. That is the core of this.

It was my hope that this bill would be the base text for an amendment process by which we get my Democratic colleagues and committee to agree with that principle. Nonetheless, we have brought this bill to the floor. It ensures Congress, not the current or future administration, retains authority over any potential central bank digital currency.

This is Congress making a statement. We have the commitment. The current chair of the Federal Reserve says we will not have a consumer- facing central bank digital currency under his tenure in the Federal Reserve. That is the commitment of the current chair. That is not a commitment from the Federal Reserve.

We have a legal ruling that says that, for this to be a consumer- facing central bank digital currency, the Fed would have to come back to Congress to ask for those authorities.

Secretary Yellen, today, in news reports, says that it is indeed the case, in her view, that the Fed would have to come back to Congress to ask for authorities for central bank digital currency.

We are making an affirmative stance and statement as a Congress that that is not just the opinion of the current chair of the Federal Reserve and the current Secretary of the Treasury, but the stance of the United States Government and the United States Congress.

It is important that we recognize civil liberties are highly important, and our system in the United States is different than every system around the globe in protecting individuals' civil liberties from governmental encroachment. We should all agree that a central bank digital currency should reflect American values of privacy, individual sovereignty, and free market competitiveness.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. It is a very important statement for us, just like the important statement we made yesterday when 71 of my Democratic colleagues voted with almost all the Republicans to put forward a regulatory framework for digital assets and cryptocurrency.

It was a great bipartisan outcome with a huge number of Democratic support, even though the administration said they don't want the bill, and even though the minority leader voted against us, and even though the ranking member on Financial Services whipped hard against the bill. We had 71 of my Democratic colleagues who saw innovation and consumer protection were at the core of that piece of legislation, and my colleagues voted in favor of it.

It is my hope today that the minority will see that we need civil liberties protections from any governmental encroachment in the financial realm, and I hope we can make a nice bipartisan statement today, as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, due to the unforeseen circumstances, I was unable to cast my votes for H.R. 5863 or H.R. 3019. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 219 and YEA on Roll Call No. 220.

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 bill (H.R. 4763).

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

Today, Congress will establish a new high-water mark for digital asset policy. To be clear, this joint effort between the Financial Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee did not come together overnight. Far from it. We formed subcommittees, convened working groups, heard from countless stakeholders, and received input from Members across the ideological spectrum in the House of Representatives.

Last July, we passed the bipartisan Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, FIT21, out of our respective committees. Each step in this process has created a new high-water mark.

The next step will be a broad bipartisan vote today to finally provide the robust consumer protections and clear regulatory framework established by this bill. FIT21 will cement the United States' global leadership in technological innovation, invention, and adoption.

Unfortunately, our current regulatory framework is preventing digital assets innovation from reaching its full potential. The SEC and the CFTC are currently in a food fight for control of these asset classes. They have created an impossible situation where the same firms are subject to competing and contradictory enforcement actions by the two different agencies, leaving consumers behind, leaving innovators behind.

FIT21 fixes this by creating a regulatory framework that will provide clear rules of the road and strong guardrails for Americans engaging with the digital asset ecosystem.

At its core, FIT21 applies time-tested consumer protections to ensure that the 20 percent of Americans who engage in the digital asset ecosystem can do so safely and so more Americans can engage, as well.

Today, we have the opportunity to answer the calls of consumers, digital asset innovators, and the Biden administration. We can establish the next

high-water mark for digital assets here in the United States.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support consumer protection, innovation, and American leadership by voting for FIT21, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the chair of the Agriculture Committee and partner in FIT21.

Mr. Chairman, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion, who has shepherded this bill along very well.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), my good friend and the chair of the Commodity Markets, Digital Assets, and Rural Development Subcommittee of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Nickel), my colleague and friend who has been a great leader on digital assets and pragmatic policy here in the House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), who is a great leader for digital assets, cryptocurrency, and innovation.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Caraveo), who has been a fantastic leader on the Agriculture Committee on digital assets.

Mr. Chair, the gentlewoman from California has indeed been a great advocate for consumer protection.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Molinaro), who is a leader on the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), who is the vice chair of the Individual Assets and Financial Technology Subcommittee and the OG, as they say, in the crypto space.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood), a great legislator in the innovation space.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose), a great leader on the Agriculture and Financial Services Committees.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), a leader on the Agriculture Committee, a former chair of the Agriculture Committee, a great leader on the Financial Services Committee, and also the chair of the Science Committee, before I forget.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), the chair of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, does the gentlewoman have any additional speakers?

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), the chair of the House Administration Committee and a great member of the Financial Services Committee on innovation policy.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis).

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

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

Let me speak to this. The void is the lack of a definition of what is a digital asset in Federal law. We have none. This bill establishes it. We have no consumer protections for crypto today. This bill establishes it both at the CFTC with a robust oversight of this industry and the SEC with real clarity. That is what this bill does is provide clarity for investors and consumers and innovators.

We are falling behind Europe. This bill catches us up so that we do not lose out on innovation policy to the Europeans, to the folks in the U.K., to Singapore, to Japan, to Hong Kong that all have regimes similar to what we are doing in this bill.

This is an important bill. It is bipartisan work. Hundreds of hours have been put into developing this bill with Members and staff.

I thank the great partnership I have had with French Hill of the Financial Services Committee and Chairman GT Thompson on the Ag Committee and Dusty Johnson on the Ag Committee. I also thank the great staff on the House Financial Services Committee, Allison Behuniak, who has shepherded this bill to this point and Paul Balzano on the Ag Committee. They have worked in great partnership and friendship and worked through major issues. I thank them for this important legislative product.

We can promote American innovation, consumer protection, and leadership with a clear regulatory framework for digital assets. The next generation of internet technology is being written. It should be written by American innovators here in the United States. We can allow that innovation to pass us by, or we can seize the opportunity and pass this bill to provide real clarity for innovation policy here in the United States.

Regulatory clarity and consumer protection, that is FIT21.

Let's vote ``yes'' on this bill and establish bipartisan support for crypto in America. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I am opposed to this amendment. Today, digital asset issuers rely on exemptions under the current securities regime. Each exemption includes its own requirements under traditional securities law. What we provide in this act is purpose built for digital assets. What this does today is if you are raising money for a digital asset offering, the exemption is built for those other types of securities in the space.

The SEC's disclosure regime is supposed to give investors the information they need to make informed decisions, but it is not built for digital assets.

What we do in this act is provide certain disclosures for investors in digital assets, such as source code, token supply, government mechanisms, and other aspects unique to crypto. That is what this bill does.

What the gentleman from Texas is proposing to do is limit that aperture from $75 million to $5 million of those folks that can invest in these early-stage innovations. What he is doing is restricting the opportunity for average, everyday investors to get options like high- wealth investors get today under securities law.

The original exemption for regulation crowdfunding was something we put in law with bipartisan support. Maxine Waters was my cosponsor on the regulation crowdfunding, this very exemption.

I have enhanced this. I put additional requirements here to make sure there are more disclosures, and we open up the aperture to $75 million so more folks can participate and so those blockchains can develop. When you make it $5 million, it makes it impossible for you to actually scale up, especially with these inflationary times that our people are facing.

What I would urge is the House reject this amendment. The gentleman's arguments against this exemption have nothing to do with the exemption but have everything to do with opposition to the bill.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me close with this, Mr. Chairman. We have this push and pull on the Financial Services Committee. Generally speaking, we have elected officials that say the American people's hard-earned savings are their hard-earned savings. Then we have paternalistic amendments like the one before us today that say: No, you are not smart enough to invest your own money. We have to put in these safeguards to protect you from yourself.

Well, I think that goes way too far.

What we have done with securities laws is take average, everyday investors and disintermediate them from the greater economy so average, everyday Americans don't get the benefit of economic growth, of Wall Street doing great, and earnings going up in corporate America. We have separated it because we have made it harder for average, everyday folks to invest in companies and have ownership of companies.

What we are trying to do is open that up a little bit from $5 million of an exemption when you are raising money to $75 million. In the scope of our economy, in the scope of our capital markets, in the scope of economic opportunity and innovation, which is a very small aperture we are opening here. We have done that. We have constructed this provision with a lot of Democratic input and Republican input, and that is how we came to the number of $75 million.

It is already a compromise.

What the gentleman offers with this amendment is nothing more than saying: I am paternalistic, and I am, therefore, going to restrict your opportunity to invest your money as you see fit.

Reject the amendment. Vote ``no'' on this amendment, and vote ``yes'' on final passage.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I am prepared to accept this amendment.

I think it is important that as we establish a new comprehensive regulatory framework for the digital asset markets, we also have to ensure that we have a consistent application of the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering provisions in existing law. These requirements on the digital asset intermediaries and exchanges are necessary so that bad actors don't exploit these markets for nefarious purposes.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for her work on this amendment. She has been focused on AML/BSA-related issues in the build up to us writing FIT21 during the markup process in the Financial Services Committee and then the process through the Rules Committee. I appreciate her sincere engagement on this matter and for coming up with a very good amendment.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), the chair of the Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion Subcommittee on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Chair, again, I will echo what Congressman Hill just stated for the Record.

The gentlewoman from Colorado has been a sterling advocate for enhanced BSA-AML protections, ensuring that we work against illicit finance. I thank her for the efforts, and I am willing to accept the amendment and urge its adoption.

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

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 807) to require the Secretary of the Treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the invaluable service that working dogs provide to society, as amended.

Madam 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 this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 807, the Working Dog Commemorative Coin Act, a bill which I am honored to have introduced along with the gentleman from Worcester, Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the ranking member of the Rules Committee.

My good friend and I introduced this bill this Congress, H.R. 807, better known as the dog coin bill in the Halls of Congress. It has been a project that both I and my staff have been passionate about since I introduced this bill last Congress.

This legislation not only honors those service dogs, but the working dogs who protect Americans at home and abroad. Most of us passed a working dog when we came through security today here in Congress. They are so embedded in our daily lives here on Capitol Hill that we often pass them without notice.

Since I introduced this bill last Congress, I think we have been noticing these working dogs everywhere we go. I am grateful to have gained this new appreciation myself. However, this newfound awareness did not come from merely introducing a piece of legislation. It came from spending time with extraordinary people that benefit from the work of America's VetDogs, and I would like to briefly highlight a few of them.

U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Christopher Sunday was medically retired in 2011 due to injuries sustained in combat after leading missions during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. He returned home and struggled, like many veterans, with post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD.

Fortunately, in 2021, Chris was matched with his PTSD-trained service canine named Eddie. Chris said about his new companion: Eddie helped me find my independence again. I was able to finish my doctorate and become a mental health director to help incarcerated individuals because of my service dog.

Navy Corpsman Joe Worley is a familiar face on Capitol Hill, traveling from office to office with his service dog, Galaxie. In 2004, as his medical convoy was headed back to his base in Fallujah, Iraq, the first vehicle in the convoy hit an improvised explosive device. Worley jumped out to help his wounded comrades, ran a few yards and was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. It did not explode, but it took off his left leg. He was then shot six times. For his actions, he was awarded the Bronze Star for valor and a Purple Heart.

Since these injuries, Joe has been paired with two separate service dogs. He has also joined America's VetDogs full-time as its veteran liaison, and what a great job he does.

Finally, Corpsman Paul Sullivan sat down in my office and told me about his work as a first responder in Anne Arundel County. He explained how his service dog, Sal, helped him escape the night terrors triggered by PTSD. He described Sal as his dream catcher, allowing him to sleep again and go about his daily life.

I thank America's VetDogs team for their relentless work to get this bill to the floor today; Deana Stone, who herself spent 20 years in the U.S. Air Force; John Miller; Bonnie Singer; Trey Matchin; and the countless volunteers and puppy handlers who knocked on every single door on the House and Senate sides of the Capitol. Their impact is evident today because of the cosponsors we have on this bill and the support we have for this bill.

For a commemorative coin or a Congressional Gold Medal to come to the floor, it must receive 290 cosponsors. Gaining that many signatures is no easy task, but those individuals worked so hard to spread the word that this is more than just a coin bill. This is a bill that will improve the quality of life for our wounded veterans and first responders, something we can all get behind.

Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member McGovern for his partnership. His work on H.R. 807, as well as his previous work to permanently authorize the Wounded Warrior Service Dog Program, is the perfect example of bipartisan collaboration to prioritize the treatment and care of wounded veterans, and this bill will help enable the treatment and care of our wounded veterans and to honor the service dogs who are among us.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 807, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self), my friend.

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

Madam Speaker, I reiterate how important this bill is. Congress can direct the Mint to strike a coin, and the proceeds of the sale of that coin can benefit society in a large-scale fashion. We have a threshold in Congress that says there has to be 290 cosponsors for a bill to do that. It has to have wide bipartisan support, and it has to be in the greater interests of the country if we are going to do this because it is a constitutional function where Congress steps in and directs the Mint to create a coin. Then we can direct the proceeds to actually help important nonprofits in this country.

When we have a group like America's VetDogs, they do such important work, and they have shown the societal benefit of what they have done. For us to act today to acknowledge the role of service dogs and then get the benefit back into this community to help veterans suffering with PTSD and for us to have service dogs available across the country is a very special thing.

As I said, it took a lot of work, and Members of Congress are people, too. Madam Speaker, we often don't acknowledge that, but we are people, too. We are emotional, too. Things get really emotional here on Capitol Hill, and the way to bring down emotion just a little bit is to have a little, good boy come by and wag their tail at you and ask to have just a little pet. Those are the dogs, the service animals, that are around on Capitol Hill.

Madam Speaker, we have some service dogs that are in the gallery today watching what is happening here. I think because they are here it has been a little less emotional. We have actually been a little more balanced in how we have debated, and so, even if they are just wagging their tails in the gallery, it brings a sense of calm to us as policymakers.

It has been a welcome thing to have those service dogs around the Capitol complex driving up cosponsorship, but it couldn't be done without the good work of staff.

From my staff, I thank my good friend, Phil Poe, who has worked with me for nearly a decade here in D.C. It has been the work of Phil to direct this whole process and to get the cosponsors and work with other offices to show interest. Without that definitive work, we would not be here today with the cosponsorship we have here.

I finish by acknowledging the important work of Phil Poe in bringing this bill to the House floor. I thank my colleagues for that indulgence to thank staff because the staff are what make this operation actually work. We can never thank them enough for the input that they make into law, the dedication they have to our constitutional republic, and to the American people.

Phil is one of the finest in the business, and I thank Phil for his good work.

Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this important bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1097) to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Everett Alvarez, Jr., in recognition of his service to the Nation.

Madam 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 bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1097, a bill that will award the Congressional Gold Medal to Everett Alvarez, Jr.

Madam Speaker, the Congressional Gold Medal is considered the highest civilian honor awarded in the United States. In the 248 years since the Continental Congress issued the first one to George Washington in 1776, only 184 have been awarded. That is fewer than one per year. Hence, the distinction of awarding such an honor should not be lost on this 118th Congress.

Madam Speaker, I cannot think of someone more deserving of such recognition than retired United States Navy Commander Alvarez, Jr.

As a boy growing up in Salinas, California, Alvarez marveled at the naval planes flying overhead in and out of Moffett Field in nearby Santa Clara County.

In 1960, at the age of 22, ignoring his parents' protests, he followed his boyhood dream of joining the Navy and was selected for pilot training.

On August 5, 1964, that dream turned into a nightmare when his A-4 Skyhawk was shot down near the Vietnam-China border during Operation Pierce Arrow. The then-lieutenant junior grade pilot was subsequently captured and imprisoned by the North Vietnamese forces.

Commander Alvarez spent the next 3,113 days, more than 8 years and 7 months, in some of the most horrific conditions imaginable. Despite being beaten and tortured for information about U.S. military operations, Commander Alvarez refused to comply, saying he wanted to be able to look in the mirror and not feel ashamed.

Even when his north Vietnamese captors no longer felt Alvarez held military intelligence value, they continued to brutalize him in attempts to extract propaganda messages. He did not cave.

When he was finally released on February 12, 1973, he held the undesirable distinction of being the second longest-held U.S. prisoner of war in our Nation's history. Commander Alvarez left prison knowing he owed nothing more to his country, but remarkably, he would go on to serve another 7 years in the United States Navy.

Today, at age 86, I believe that when Commander Everett Alvarez, Jr., looks in the mirror, he sees only honor in his reflection and that is what the American people see.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, Mr. Panetta, for introducing this bill, along with the multitude of sponsors. It is a massive amount of work to get a legislative product like this, especially in a divided Congress and a divided time for America, but this is a source of unity and pride that Americans are willing to sacrifice for their American Dream and their ideals in this free Nation of ours. Because of the willingness of folks like Commander Alvarez, we do have this free Nation and we do have a sense of pride in being an American.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I urge my colleagues to do the same, but, again, I will close by thanking Mr. Panetta for his thoughtful approach in building bipartisan consensus, not just on this, but overall, in his policymaking skills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 4 minutes to the gentleman from California.

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

I thank my Democratic colleagues for their work. We have two coin bills here on the floor today, and they speak to different parts of our United States history and the best among us. That gift that continues with us retelling important stories of our history is really important for us to know today.

I thank Mr. Panetta for the work that he put into bringing this Congressional Gold Medal Act before us and the story of Everett Alvarez, Jr.'s contribution to the United States and the example he gives us. For this to be done in his lifetime is a very special and rare honor, indeed.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important resolution, and I thank my colleagues for the form of debate here and the storytelling. It is important for us to tell the stories of the best of American history, and, let's be honest, it is important to tell the whole story of American history. These stories of heroic acts are really important for us to know.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I was unable to cast my votes for H. Res. 1210, H.R. 4510, H.R. 6571, and H.R. 3950. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 202; YEA on Roll Call No. 205; YEA on Roll Call No. 211; and YEA on Roll Call No. 212.

Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I was unable to cast my

vote for Senate Amendment 546 and H.R. 7659. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 196, and YEA on Roll Call No. 197.

Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I was unable to cast my votes for H.R. 6192, H.J. Res. 98, and H.R. 7423. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 182; NAY on Roll Call No. 183; YEA on Roll Call No. 184; YEA on Roll Call No. 185; and YEA on Roll Call No. 186.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1194, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 109) 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``, 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 submit extraneous material on the joint resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bipartisan resolution of disapproval. This resolution is an essential effort to protect consumers and foster innovation in digital asset markets.

It is also critical to stop the Securities and Exchange Commission's regulatory power grabs and efforts to circumvent the Administrative Procedure Act.

I thank my friend Congressman Flood of Nebraska, a leader on financial innovation and digital asset policy, for introducing this bipartisan resolution.

Staff Accounting Bulletin 121, or SAB 121, is one of the most glaring examples of the current Securities and Exchange Commission's reign of overreach.

Through SAB 121, the Commission is trying to dictate how financial institutions and firms safeguard Americans' digital assets, in particular here, digital assets, under the guise of so-called staff guidance.

Let me explain why this is deeply concerning. Because they call it a staff guidance, the Securities and Exchange Commission could avoid public comment and the rulemaking process governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA.

This is where the public gets to give an opinion back or expertise back to the agency so they can improve the rulemaking by listening to the public. This is a longstanding process here in the United States.

Not only did the Securities and Exchange Commission bypass Congress and the Comptroller General, but the Commission did not even consult with other financial regulators, prudential regulators responsible for overseeing banks prior to issuing SAB 121.

Thanks to the work of the House Financial Services Committee and my friend Senator Lummis, the GAO rightly deemed SAB 121 a rule for purposes of the Congressional Review Act, providing Congress with the opportunity to right the wrong of the agency action.

SAB 121 requires financial institutions and firms that are safeguarding their customers' digital assets to hold those assets on their balance sheet.

That means banks would be required to take on significant capital liquidity and other costs under the existing prudential regulatory framework.

This essentially makes it cost prohibitive for financial institutions to custody their customers' digital assets.

This is a massive deviation for how highly regulated banks are traditionally required to treat assets they hold on behalf of their customers.

Now, this is the point that everyone can understand. This is a change that harms consumers and makes them less protected. It is not a change for the better, clearly.

It limits the options for consumers and increases concentration risk to the financial system. Perhaps even worse, it could leave Americans' assets vulnerable in the event of a bank failure, just as we saw with Silicon Valley Bank last year.

If you want Americans' assets to be protected, they should be held in custody, not on a bank balance sheet. If you want Americans to be able to engage with digital assets safely and securely, banks, which are some of the most highly regulated entities in our country and in the world, are probably the best places for them to be kept. Unfortunately, SAB 121 makes this nearly impossible.

We hear a lot from our Democrat colleagues about consumer protection. If that concern is genuine, and I think it is, they should support Congressman Flood's bipartisan resolution before us today.

Let me give you one example of why this guidance is problematic. The Securities and Exchange Commission recently approved 11 Bitcoin ETFs, which allow everyday investors to gain exposure to this new technology. It is a decade old, but it is relatively new.

Of those 11, zero--and I repeat, zero--use banks as their primary custodian. Instead, all that risk is now concentrated in a few entities.

Let's do a quick recap. The Securities and Exchange Commission through Staff Accounting Bulletin 121 upended traditional custody practices.

Just like you hold a stock with a stockbroker, it is held in custody. That means if that entity goes bankrupt, your asset is still protected. It is held in custody and safeguarded as if it is in a safe.

We want digital assets to be treated the same way that we treat other assets and be protected. This staff accounting bulletin upends traditional custody practices for banking institutions and makes a joke of the rulemaking process and ignores other regulatory agencies and market participants that are impacted by this bulletin. That is a bad process with even worse policy outcomes.

If you want consumers to be protected in digital assets markets, vote ``yes'' on this resolution. If you want to return bank custody practices to the tried, tested, and successful approach that we have had in this country for centuries, then vote ``yes.'' If you support financial innovation, you should vote ``yes,'' as well.

Finally, if you want to send a message that rogue regulators cannot circumvent Congress and our well-established rulemaking process, vote ``yes.''

Let's bring a level of common sense into the world of the digital asset debate or crypto and bring consumer protection back to this marketplace where it needs to be.

I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this Congressional Review Act.

Finally, I thank Congressman Flood on the Republican side and Congressman Nickel on the Democrat side for their leadership on this important topic.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the Government Accountability Office's October 31, 2023, decision on the ``Applicability of the Congressional Review Act to Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121,'' which can be found online at: https://www.gao.gov/ assets/870/862501.pdf.

The decision makes clear that the accusations that the ranking member is making about how broad this is are simply not the case. It is a very targeted removal of the staff accounting bulletin that broadly affects digital assets, not one bank.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Flood), the sponsor of the resolution and a leader on innovation on the Financial Services Committee and broader policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues that if they want to fix the Sam Bankman-Fried FTX fraud and their ability to do that again, then you need to pass the bill that we produced out of committee that regulates crypto and provides regulatory agencies power.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas), who is the chairman of the Science Committee and a great leader on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr), who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Monetary Policy on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my friend and chair of the Digital Assets Subcommittee and the vice-chair of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson), the chair of the Housing Subcommittee, the vice chair of the Digital Assets Subcommittee, and a longtime leader in digital innovation and digital assets.

Mr. Speaker, my friend says dangerous and reckless. Well, Democrats used the Congressional Review Act process just like Republicans have used the Congressional Review Act process. This is not reckless or dangerous. It is law, and we are trying to be a check and balance on overreach of the administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald), an esteemed member of the Financial Services Committee and Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Nickel), my good friend and colleague, and a great leader in digital assets.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a May 7, 2024, letter from the American Bankers Association, Bank Policy Institute, the Financial Services Forum, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association supporting H.J. Res. 109.

May 7, 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. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: The

American Bankers Association, Bank Policy Institute,

Financial Services Forum, and Securities Industry and

Financial Markets Association (Associations) write to express

our support for H.J. Res. 109, the Congressional Review Act

resolution of disapproval for the Securities and Exchange

Commission's ``Staff Accounting Bulletin 121.'' H.J. Res. 109

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

(D-NC) and favorably reported by a bipartisan vote from the

Financial Services Committee on February 29. The measure is

scheduled for consideration by the House this week.

In March 2022, the Securities and Exchange Commission's

(SEC) Office of the Chief Accountant released Staff

Accounting Bulletin (SAB) 121, without consulting the

prudential regulators or soliciting public comment, to

address perceived risks to publicly traded companies that

safeguard digital assets for their customers. Under SAB 121,

an entity responsible for safeguarding digital assets for

platform users must measure safeguarding assets and

obligations on its balance sheet at the fair value of the

related assets, which is a departure from accounting

standards and the historical practice of treating custodial

assets as off-balance sheet. As this effectively treats the

custodied assets as those owned by a bank, SAB 121

effectively precludes banks from offering digital asset

custody at scale since placing the value of client assets on

their balance sheets will impact certain capital, liquidity,

and other prudential requirements. Furthermore, SAB 121

undercuts the ability of banks to develop responsible use

cases for distributed ledger technology (DLT) and encumbers

regulated broker-dealers from custody services as a result of

the net capital rule (Rule 15c3-1), which treats the on-

balance sheet items as non-allowable assets.

On February 14, 2024, the Associations sent a joint letter

to the SEC noting that over the past two years SAB 121 has

curbed the ability of our member banks to develop and bring

to market at scale certain digital asset products and

services. This includes spot bitcoin exchange traded products

(recently approved by the Commission for investors) and the

use of DLT to record traditional financial assets (i.e.

tokenization).

SAB 121 represents a significant departure from

longstanding accounting treatment for custodial assets and

threatens the industry's ability to provide its customers

with safe and sound custody of digital assets. Other, non-

bank digital asset platforms subject to SAB 121 are not

required to meet the same capital, liquidity, or other

prudential standards as banks and therefore do not face the

economically prohibitive implications of SAB 121. Limiting

banks' ability to offer these services leaves customers with

few well-regulated, trusted options for safeguarding their

digital asset portfolios and ultimately exposes them to

increased risk.

The Associations respectfully request that Members of the

House vote in favor of H. J. Res. 109.

Sincerely,

American Bankers Association,

Bank Policy Institutec,

Financial Services Forum,

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.

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

Mr. Speaker, the administration's approach to digital assets doesn't make a lot of sense.

The President has an executive order outlining work products that he wants from agencies. On one hand, they say we want to bring digital assets into regulated finance, and we need clear rules of the road.

On the other hand, the administration's appointees at the Securities and Exchange Commission have done everything they can to undermine that level of clarity, that is number one; number two, issuing guidance that undermines whatever the current clarity is and diminishing that; number three, thereby diminishing consumer protection.

It is a nonsensical approach. So the administration says they want to veto this resolution. Yet they have a whole workstream the President issued without any forcing mechanism and executive order asking for a regulated stable coin, which we have passed out of the House Financial Services Committee with bipartisan votes.

They have asked for a market regulation to give clarity of what is a digital asset, and a means of exchange so American consumers can participate in this innovation that is the basis of the new generation of internet technology that the globe is using and America is behind.

I think it is important that we engage, as best we can, whether it is with the stable coin bill that we passed out of committee--the market regulation bill we passed out of committee--that it brings that clarity the President's executive order asked for, and takes this first step to provide consumer protection so that their financial assets are protected.

If the firm goes bankrupt, they want to know they can get their asset back. Passing this repeal is the first step in that process.

This is very important for consumer protection. If you support consumer protection vote ``yes'' on this resolution. If you support safety and soundness for financial institutions vote ``yes.'' If you support reining in rogue regulators vote ``yes.'' This should be a wide bipartisan vote and a statement that the House supports digital assets, digital innovation, and thoughtful policymaking from our regulators and regulated finance.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this resolution. I also thank my colleagues on the Democrat side, Mr. Nickel, and on the Republican side, Mr. Flood, for their thoughtful approach to policymaking, and digital assets generally, but on developing this Congressional Review Act proposal, in particular.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I was unable to cast my votes for H.R. 7219 and H.R. 7525.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 177, and YEA on Roll Call No. 178.

Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I was unable to cast my votes for H.R. 4866 and H.R. 4755. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 153, and YEA on Roll Call No. 154.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1149, I call up the bill (H.R. 6323) to modify the availability of certain waiver authorities with respect to sanctions imposed with respect to the financial sector of Iran, 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 include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, we witnessed Iran's unprecedented attack on our greatest ally and the lone democracy in the Middle East, Israel.

Tehran struck our friends in Israel with a swarm of missiles and drone attacks launched from Iranian soil. Thankfully, most of the attack was intercepted by Israeli defense systems with the support from the mighty U.S. military and other partners in the region and across the world.

This assault was just the latest sign that the ayatollahs seek to destroy Israel from all sides.

In addition to this direct attack, Iran has sought to encircle our Israeli allies through its support of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Hamas' terrorist strike last October on innocent Israeli civilians was a wake-up call for many around the world. It underscores the brutality of the Iranian proxies.

In response to this aggression, my friend and colleague from California (Mrs. Kim) authored the bill we are considering today, H.R. 6323, the Iran Counterterrorism Act. This legislation will provide Congress a stronger role in any future sanctions relief for Iran.

Under current law, the U.S. imposes so-called secondary sanctions against foreign banks that deal with Iran, restricting the ayatollahs' access to hard currency. At the same time, the President enjoys certain waiver authorities that he can invoke for national security purposes.

For example, last September, while Hamas was preparing to wage war against Israel, the Biden administration issued a waiver that allowed for $6 billion in Iranian funds to be unfrozen.

However, this is not a Democratic or Republican issue we are bringing forward here. Administrations from both parties have used waivers in the past.

Additionally, Congress routinely enacts waiver authorities so the executive branch can use discretion in order to convince bad actors to change their behavior.

The issue when it comes to Iran is the status quo is simply unsustainable. Congresswoman Kim's bill recognizes this.

The regime in Tehran is so hostile, and the threat it poses to Israel and American interests are so high that lawmakers need a greater say when waivers are granted to the ayatollahs' access to the global financial system.

This bill before us ensures U.S. sanctions against Iran can only be waived if Iran has ceased support for international terrorism.

If the administration cannot certify that Iran is no longer financing terrorism, the bill also provides Congress with a chance to review any national security interest waivers of these sanctions.

When H.R. 6323 was passed by the Financial Services Committee, it received bipartisan support because Members are no longer comfortable delegating blanket waiver authorities that benefit Iran.

Tehran's continued aggression, from its efforts to destroy Israel, to its pursuit of nuclear weapons, to its export of drone technologies to Russia, demonstrates that our waiver policies need closer scrutiny.

Congresswoman Kim's legislation draws on a similar congressional review process already in place for Russian sanctions. This review was established under legislation from 2017 that passed both the House and the Senate with near unanimous support.

I am hopeful that our Democratic colleagues will take the threat posed by Iran as seriously as they did Russia when Congress enacted that law.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, Mrs. Kim's bill retains the sanctions exemptions we already have in place for humanitarian assistance to ordinary Iranians. Our challenge is with the regime in Iran, not the Iranian people. Her bill focuses on targeting Tehran's ability to finance terrorism, not on punishing innocent Iranian civilians.

This bill also is about ensuring that waivers benefiting the Iranian Government receive an appropriate vetting in Congress. After the attacks inflicted on

our Israeli allies and friends over the past 7 months, surely, we can all support this commonsense measure.

I thank Mrs. Kim for her work on this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim), a member of the Financial Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee.

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, I would like to just underscore a few points here. This bill was reported out of committee in November and was publicly available to Members. We reported this bill out

with bipartisan votes coming out of committee. My expectation here on the House floor is we would likewise have a bipartisan vote, number one.

Number two, this is applying the same standard to the Iranian regime that we have applied to the Russian regime, which says if you are going to waive sanctions, we have got to have a say here in Congress. We have to know what you are doing and why.

Now, that was the standard for my Democratic colleagues for a Republican administration, but now my Democratic colleagues don't have that same standard for a Democratic administration, which I think is more partisan than it is in the national interest.

Additionally, it is not just a question of the administration. It is a question of our relationship and our approach to Iran.

Are we going to take Russia more seriously than Iran? I don't think that is in our national interest. I don't think that is in the interest of international stability.

There are a number of things that I raise here that I think are important parts of the debate. This is a bipartisan approach to waivers which is a good standard whether it is a Democratic administration or a Republican administration, whether or not Republicans or Democrats run the House or the Senate. It says to Iran that we are going to treat them similarly to how we treat the Russian regime.

We have got to stand against the aggression of Tehran and its efforts to destroy Israel, its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and its export of drone technology to Russia. We should stand against that. This week we are making a statement that we do stand against that.

This Congress is making bold statements this week, and I predict we will make more bold statements this week.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 39 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 17, 2024, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Mr. Speaker, due to unforeseen circumstances, I was unable to cast my vote for H.R. 3250.

Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 109.