[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 79 (Tuesday, May 7, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H2883-H2889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6192, HANDS OFF OUR HOME APPLIANCES 
  ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7109, EQUAL REPRESENTATION 
   ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 109, PROVIDING FOR 
 CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE SECURITIES 
  AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION RELATING TO ``STAFF ACCOUNTING BULLETIN NO. 
121''; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2925, MINING REGULATORY 
                          CLARITY ACT OF 2024

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1194 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1194

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 6192) to amend the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from 
     prescribing any new or amended energy conservation standard 
     for a product that is not technologically feasible and 
     economically justified, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or 
     their respective designees. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill 
     shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the 
     Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, 
     as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as 
     amended, shall be in order except those printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     such further amendment may be offered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill, as amended, to the House with such 
     further amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House 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. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Oversight and Accountability now printed in the bill shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or 
     their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House 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''. All points of order 
     against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The 
     joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     joint resolution and on any amendment thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
     Services or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 4.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House 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. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute printed in House Report 118-416 
     shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) 30 minutes of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their 
     respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Maloy). The gentlewoman from Indiana is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 
1194, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of 
legislation.
  The rule provides for H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, to be 
considered under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees and 
provides for one motion to recommitment.
  Additionally, the rule also provides for H.J. Res. 109, a joint 
resolution associated with a rule submitted by the Securities and 
Exchange Commission relating to ``Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121.''
  H.J. Res. 109 would be considered under a closed rule, and it 
provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or 
their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6192, the Hands Off 
Our Home Appliances Act, to be considered under a structured rule. It 
also provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
  Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2925, the Mining 
Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024 to be considered under a closed rule.
  It also provides 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
Resources or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the 
underlying pieces of legislation.

[[Page H2884]]

  Beginning with H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, Madam 
Speaker, I am glad this rule provides for consideration of this 
legislation, of which I am a proud cosponsor.
  The core premise of this legislation is simple. The Census should be 
an accurate reflection of this country's citizenry.
  According to the U.S. Census Bureau, noncitizens comprise 
approximately 6.7 percent of the Nation's 333 million people.
  Including noncitizens in the apportionment of congressional districts 
will directly impact representation in Congress.
  This, to me and most Americans, seems to be a way to take 
Representatives away from red States and add them to blue States; to 
literally change the makeup of this body by diluting the influence and 
number of red districts and adding blue districts in their place.
  Under President Biden's watch, nearly 4.7 million illegal aliens have 
been released into the country, and more than 1.8 million known illegal 
alien got-aways have escaped into the United States. When added up, 
these numbers are larger than the population of 32 States.
  This isn't simply a constitutional argument. This is a deliberate 
effort by Joe Biden and the Democrat machine in Washington.
  On day one of taking office, President Biden issued Executive Order 
13986 requiring noncitizens to be counted in the Census both for the 
purposes of enumeration and determining congressional apportionment.
  This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Having an accurate count of U.S. 
citizens for the purpose of congressional representation should not be 
a partisan issue. Yet, here we are with two sides debating the question 
of who should be counted.
  This is a question firmly in Congress' purview. In Department of 
Commerce v. New York, following the Trump administration's attempt to 
reinstate a citizenship question on the decennial Census, the Supreme 
Court made clear this decision is up to the Congress.
  I appreciate the leadership of the authors of this bill to ensure 
Congress is carrying out that responsibility. I hope this measure will 
have the full support of my colleagues.
  Moving on to the financial sector, as a member of the Financial 
Services Committee, I am glad to see floor consideration of H.J. Res. 
109.
  This legislation addresses an SEC action that bypassed proper 
rulemaking procedures. Rather than following the processes laid out by 
the Congressional Review Act and Administrative Procedures Act, the SEC 
relied erroneously on a staff accounting bulletin.
  You don't have to take our word for it. SEC Commissioner Hester 
Pierce is on record having said the staff accounting bulletin may not 
be the appropriate vehicle through which to make this accounting 
change.
  Beyond that, however, this rule brings more uncertainty into the 
crypto industry by going beyond clarifying how to account for digital 
assets.
  Indeed, this rule effectively requires banks and financial 
institutions to place digital assets on their balance sheets.
  This makes it unclear if customers' assets will be lost if the 
custodian becomes insolvent. It also increases capital, liquidity, and 
other requirements for financial institutions in order to manage the 
risk associated with these assets that should never really be on their 
books.
  The digital assets ecosystem needs more clarity, not less. My 
colleagues and I on the Financial Services Committee have worked hard 
this Congress to provide clear rules of the road for digital assets 
innovation. This rule clearly does the opposite.

                              {time}  1230

  The rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 6192, the Hands 
Off Our Home Appliances Act.
  One thing we all have come to expect from this administration is the 
persistent attacks on American energy and consumer choice. This 
legislation is another attempt by the Republican majority to defend 
against the latest attack as the focus of congressional Democrats has 
now turned inside every American's home.
  The Biden administration is now willing to reduce the affordability 
and reliability of everyday household appliances in pursuit of an out-
of-touch, unrealistic, and unaffordable green agenda.
  Under the guise of increased efficiency, the administration has 
offered new rules on home appliances that will raise costs, thus making 
these household necessities less available, especially to people of 
modest means. This is at a time when homeowners are already spending 34 
percent more on home appliances than they did less than two decades 
ago.
  When Americans are struggling to pay for food under the crushing 
reality of Bidenflation, they now must also worry about affording the 
appliances they use to prepare it. Instead of relief, the 
administration offers more obstacles. That is why we need to pass H.R. 
6192.
  Finally, the rule provides for H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory 
Clarity Act of 2024. Simply put, our country is blessed with a diverse 
array of abundant natural resources. We must be responsible stewards of 
these resources, but responsible stewardship does not mean abandoning 
the resources that we have. It does not mean making ourselves more 
reliant on other countries in the name of unrealistic agendas that are 
divorced from national needs and our own national security.
  This bipartisan bill provides certainty where certainty is lacking 
and allows necessary projects to responsibly move forward.
  I look forward to consideration of all of these pieces of legislation 
and urge the passage of this rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  (Mr. NEGUSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NEGUSE. 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

[[Page H2885]]

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.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I agree it is ridiculous that we must 
consider legislation like the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, but 
that is the level of ridiculousness that the Democratic Party has 
forced us into with their out-of-touch, woke agenda. The priorities of 
the American people are protecting their right to consumer choice, not 
to be policed in their own homes. Democrats are fighting for woke 
corporations. Republicans are fighting for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Langworthy).
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for 
yielding the time.
  With the ongoing migrant crisis in New York State, my district has 
sadly been on the front lines of Democratic policies that reward those 
who have broken our laws to come into this country illegally.
  With thousands of illegal immigrants now residing in hotels, 
shelters, and public facilities across my State, my constituents and 
other New Yorkers have seen what happens when their hard-earned tax 
dollars are spent on programs that enable a completely avoidable 
crisis. It is as if Governor Hochul and Mayor Adams put up a neon sign 
saying: Come on in. New York is open for business.
  Illegal immigrants know if they cross the border and ask to be sent 
to New York, they will be fed, clothed, housed, and even given a debit 
card. We are looking at half a million illegals in New York alone and 
nearly 10 million who have crossed our southern border to be released 
into the interior of the United States.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle want these noncitizens 
to be represented here in Congress. It is unconstitutional and 
completely ridiculous. It is a threat to the very sovereignty of the 
United States of America.
  Democrats want to make citizenship mean nothing. A nation without 
borders is not a nation, especially when you allow anyone from any 
country to vote in our elections and be represented in our government.
  Now, thankfully, our courts have stopped reckless attempts to allow 
noncitizens to vote, but we need to ensure that Congress is 
representative of our citizens and our citizens alone. That is what our 
Nation's Founders intended, and it is the only way to uphold the 
principles of our democracy.
  Allowing representation for noncitizens is also a slap in the face to 
every immigrant who went through the proper channels and came here 
legally, the right way, to search for the American Dream. They respect 
our laws, have sworn allegiance to the United States of America, and 
deserve to be represented fairly here in Washington.
  I am a proud cosponsor of the Equal Representation Act before us 
today because it is time that we stop rewarding States like my home 
State of New York and California for their destructive sanctuary 
policies.
  With the absence of a citizenship requirement for apportionment in 
congressional districts, we have allowed a perverse incentive to take 
hold where Democrat-run sanctuary States are rewarded with greater 
representation in the Halls of Congress and greater sway in the 
electoral college simply by counting millions of illegal aliens who 
have broken our laws and taken advantage of these States' destructive 
policies. It sends the wrong message to the world about the value of 
citizenship and our respect for our own laws and own government.

  Mr. Speaker, we are effectively allowing those who are not U.S. 
citizens to have a significant say in the future of U.S. elections. 
This is a wrong that, for the sake of the American people and our own 
sovereignty as a nation, must be corrected.
  It is simple. Allowing noncitizens to vote and be represented in 
Congress dilutes the voice of the American citizen and opens the door 
to manipulation and exploitation of our electoral system.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Equal Representation Act and look 
forward to its consideration on the floor.
  Mr. NEGUSE. 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).

                              {time}  1245

  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bills under this 
rule, and, in particular, to the so-called Equal Representation Act. I 
filed an amendment to this bill with Representative Cleaver to ensure 
that the Census not only fully counts the U.S. population but that it 
counts it accurately.

[[Page H2886]]

  When the Census occurs, incarcerated people are counted as residents 
of the towns where they are imprisoned rather than the places they call 
home. This practice tends to reduce the population in urban areas, 
where most prisoners are from, and inflate the populations of rural 
areas, where most prisons are located. Ultimately, prison 
gerrymandering creates a gross inequity of representation at the 
expense of urban areas and communities of color.
  The over 1 million incarcerated people in the United States are being 
used as pawns to falsely increase the voting power of areas that do not 
represent their interests.
  My amendment, which was blocked from reaching the floor, would have 
required the Census Bureau to count incarcerated people at their last 
place of residence.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the so-called Equal 
Representation Act and instead support efforts to end prison 
gerrymandering.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague on the other 
side of the aisle, this is just one piece of the Democrats' green 
agenda that is fast-tracking a path to all electric vehicles and 
appliances at a time when our grid can least afford it without any 
consideration for grid stability.
  This move to all EVs and electric appliances in our homes is not 
something that consumers are ready for, and it is not something that 
consumers want. The American people want to have choice and 
affordability, and the actions of the Democrats on this issue are the 
opposite of that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. 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).
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule under 
debate and to oppose H.R. 7109, the so-called Equal Representation Act.
  This GOP bill is designed to fundamentally change who is included in 
the U.S. Census by undercounting, especially, our Hispano communities.
  Now, let me be clear, first and foremost, this bill violates the U.S. 
Constitution and the 14th Amendment and is designed specifically to 
dilute who counts in America--quite literally who counts--because the 
bill would stop millions of Americans from filling out the Census.
  Now, let's not forget that Donald Trump tried to do this in the 2020 
Census, and the courts had to intervene.
  Mr. Speaker, do you know what the Supreme Court found?
  It found that the arguments in support of that effort were not only 
flawed and contrived but unconstitutional. That is right. This is not a 
partisan issue, as was said by the gentlewoman across the aisle. This 
is a constitutional issue. I brought a copy of the Constitution for my 
friends across the aisle to do some reading if they would like to 
actually see what it says in the 14th Amendment.
  In fact, not only is this not a partisan issue, both Republican and 
Democratic former Census Bureau directors argued that the 
implementation of the citizenship question would lower response rates 
especially for our Hispanic communities. A Harvard study showed that 6 
million Hispanic Americans would remain unaccounted for.
  Undercounts would have devastating implications not only for our 
electoral system but the well-being of our families and communities 
because Federal aid grants and other funds in our States fundamentally 
are determined by the Census, things like maternal health grants, 
healthcare for our children, and mental health services for our 
veterans. An undercount would result in dramatic underfunding in areas 
with large immigrant and Hispanic populations, like my home State of 
New Mexico where more than 50 percent of the State identifies as 
Hispanic.
  New Mexico is a place where we already struggle and where we have the 
worst social, economic, and health outcomes in the country due to a 
history of underfunding and underrepresentation, which is why instead 
of attacking representation, we should be focused on barriers to 
representation. That is why I filed an amendment in the Rules Committee 
to do just that.
  Now, unfortunately, my friends across the aisle in the Rules 
Committee ruled it out of order because not only are they not 
interested in improving the Census, they are obsessed with determining 
who counts, with who is American, and who should have access to the 
American Dream, including at the ballot box.
  I say that is not the America that my ancestors immigrated to, that 
is not the America that our Founding Fathers formed and fought for, and 
that is not the America our people are asking us to fight for.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge you to read this document here, the U.S. 
Constitution.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to just unpack some of those arguments made against this bill, that 
H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, will discourage immigrants 
from participating in the Census.
  Revealing that someone is not a citizen does not reveal if someone is 
here illegally. The individual could have lawful permanent residence, 
they could be a nonimmigrant residing in the U.S. during an authorized 
period of stay. Moreover, the Census Bureau must follow strict rules of 
confidentiality and cannot disclose data tied to an individual 
respondent in the decennial Census. It can only share aggregate 
information not attributed to a particular person.

  Furthermore, even if respondents were reluctant to complete the 
Census questionnaire, they would still likely be enumerated by the 
Census Bureau using other methods, such as review of official records 
to determine the inhabitants of a particular address or by using proxy 
information such as reliable information from a neighbor.
  Also, there was an argument that H.R. 7109 would skew the 
distribution of Federal assistance away from States and localities.
  This argument is a red herring. H.R. 7109 makes absolutely no changes 
whatsoever to any laws implicating Federal assistance. Noncitizens 
would still be counted in the decennial Census. They would only be 
excluded from the congressional apportionment base.
  One other argument that has just been made is that H.R. 7109 
fundamentally misunderstands how apportionment was designed by the 
Framers of the Constitution.
  While Democrats may claim that the Evenwel v. Abbott Supreme Court 
decision requires the phrase ``whole number of persons'' in section 2 
of the 14th Amendment to be interpreted as any resident, regardless of 
citizenship status, section 5 of the 14th Amendment permits the use of 
implementing statutes for the 14th Amendment. It is this implementing 
statute which H.R. 7109 amends to explicitly exclude noncitizens from 
the apportionment base.
  Beyond that, the historical context surrounding the phrase ``whole 
number of persons'' was specifically chosen to make clear that the 
drafters rejected counting individuals as partial persons. It does not 
in any way signify that any person taking up residence in a State 
should be counted for the purpose of apportionment, and certainly not 
that noncitizens must be included in the apportionment base.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. 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

[[Page H2887]]

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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moore of Utah). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEGUSE. 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.
  Ms. CHU. Mr. Speaker, the legislation this body brings to the floor 
each week speaks volumes about our priorities.
  While House Democrats are defending our fundamental freedoms by 
fighting back against extreme MAGA Republican attacks on abortion care 
and fertility services like IVF, the majority believes that rather than 
protecting the rights of women in this country, it is essential that we 
protect the so-called rights of home appliances.
  The difference could not be starker. In a time of unrelenting attacks 
on reproductive rights and when 21 States have banned, either fully or 
partially, abortion access, House Republicans have chosen to do 
nothing. They have chosen to pretend that women are not dying, that 
they are not being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies, and they are 
doing nothing to protect IVF or birth control.
  Instead, they are bringing up a rule today to consider legislation to 
protect home appliances.
  It seems that House Republicans would like toasters and microwaves to 
have more rights than women in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question on this rule, my 
Democratic colleagues and I will offer my bill, the Women's Health 
Protection Act, or WHPA. WHPA is a Federal solution to the extremist 
Supreme Court decision to strike down Roe v. Wade. It will restore the 
right to everyone, no matter what State you live in, to receive 
abortion care.
  In a world where doctors are being threatened with prison time for 
doing their jobs, it would protect the rights of providers to provide 
abortion care. This is the legislation the body should be considering 
today, not bills protecting blenders and coffee makers.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. 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.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today because Republicans think appliances 
have more rights than people and because they think that creating and 
perpetuating nonsense culture war issues will win them votes.
  Today, we have a bill titled Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act. 
Republicans say it is government overreach to regulate appliances, but 
Republicans will regulate women's personal healthcare decisions. 
Republicans will protect appliances but let women suffer and die from 
pregnancy complications.
  Republicans want freedom for refrigerators but will take away women's 
freedom to choose an abortion based on her own faith in consultation 
with her own doctor and loved ones.
  Republicans will take away women's freedom to choose an abortion 
after rape or incest, but they will go to bat for your gas stove.
  They care about freezers but could care less about affordable 
childcare. Instead of helping women with childcare costs, which would 
help families with the high cost of living, Republicans would rather 
force these access costs on consumers.
  Yesterday, I introduced an amendment to the rule from Representative 
Chu and me which changes the title of the bill to the Hands Off Our 
Bodies Act and strikes the text and replaces it with the Women's Health 
Protection Act.
  Mr. Speaker, 65 percent of Americans oppose the overturning of Roe v. 
Wade. They want us to protect women. However, this amendment didn't 
pass.
  This bill is part of a quartet of bills coming out of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee with titles like the Liberty in Laundry Act, the 
Refrigerator Freedom Act, and the Affordable Air Conditioning Act.
  These titles turn the cry for reproductive healthcare rights on their 
head. Not only are they insulting to women who are fighting for their 
rights, they are demeaning to women who will remember in November.

                              {time}  1300

  Do my colleagues on the other side of the aisle think the American 
women will vote Republican based on these misnamed appliance bills? 
Women are not so gullible. We will remember.
  We will remember that 184 House Republicans have cosponsored bills 
that threaten IVF access nationwide. We will remember that Republican 
legislators are putting women's lives at risk when my colleagues 
criminalize abortion.
  The majority is robbing States of the healthcare they need as 
obstetricians and gynecologists are fleeing those repressive States. 
Republicans are forcing women who undergo pregnancy complications to 
sit until they are near death in hospital parking lots.
  Women will remember that Democrats believe women can, should, and 
must make their own decisions about their bodies. Republicans think 
appliances have more rights than people. However, I call on Republicans 
to prioritize women over appliances and reject this rule.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just make note of a few things with regard to the 
Equal Representation Act. We have heard some comments from our Democrat 
colleagues that this is somehow unconstitutional.
  The court case referenced in Department of Commerce v. New York, the 
lower court dismissed the plaintiff's claims under the Enumeration 
Clause, permitted claims under the Administrative Procedures Act and 
Due Process Clause.
  However, the Supreme Court upheld requiring the citizenship question 
only on the claims under the Administrative Procedures Act and not on 
constitutional grounds, saying that it is Congress' responsibility to 
determine whether and how this should take place. That is what we are 
doing here today in the Equal Representation Act by saying precisely 
that noncitizens should not count in congressional apportionment.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. 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).
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, we are also here today to debate 
Republicans' terrible mining rule, which would open millions of acres 
of public lands to foreign-owned mining companies.
  I find it ridiculous that we are here today because, just last week, 
this House voted in favor of my motion to recommit, and that motion to 
recommit said: Let's send this back to committee. Let's send it back to 
committee to consider my amendment, which would have banned foreign 
adversaries, like China, from being able

[[Page H2888]]

to take our public lands and resources for free.
  Unfortunately, almost every Republican said: It is all right for 
Chinese corporations to mine our data for TikTok, but the majority 
said: No. We want them to be able to take our gold, our silver, our 
copper, our resources, for free, to China.
  Thankfully, six Republicans voted in favor of the MTR; but instead of 
going back to committee to consider it, we are back here again because 
the Rules Committee put the bill back on the floor without that 
amendment. If my colleagues believe that American resources belong with 
American corporations, Members should vote against this rule.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on the Equal Representation Act. This 
bill would restore the one-person, one-vote principle in apportionment. 
Only citizens are eligible to vote for candidates for Federal offices, 
including Members of Congress and electors for President of the United 
States.
  However, under the current practice, noncitizens, including lawful 
permanent residents, nonimmigrants, and even illegal aliens are wrongly 
included in a State's population for purposes of the apportionment 
calculation. Thus, States with higher proportions of noncitizens 
residing in that State are advantaged over States with a lower 
concentration of noncitizens.
  In the case of illegal aliens, the status quo is particularly 
concerning as some States or major metropolitan areas within those 
States have declared themselves sanctuary jurisdictions, shielding 
illegal aliens from Federal immigration law enforcement, with some even 
providing special services to the illegal alien population residing in 
those jurisdictions.
  Illegal aliens incentivized to move to those jurisdictions, who 
reside in that State on Census day, and who are enumerated in the 
Census, would add to the State's population for the purposes of 
apportionment.
  It is appropriate for Congress to direct the Census Bureau to collect 
one of the most fundamental data points regarding individuals residing 
in the United States: Whether or not they are a citizen.
  Article I of the Constitution requires the Census of the population 
to be taken every 10 years. This is directed by law. The Supreme Court 
has explained that Congress is permitted by the Constitution to inquire 
about citizenship on this questionnaire, on the Census. Adding a 
citizenship question to the decennial Census is an appropriate exercise 
of Article I authority over the Census and is the responsibility of 
Congress
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. 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.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I note that the Founders never would have 
intended a U.S. President allowing 6.7 million illegal immigrants into 
the country, including terrorists and the drug cartels. I think that is 
probably not something that was envisioned by the Founders.
  Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close as well, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. 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.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, we, once again, have before us today the opportunity to 
move legislation that could have a positive effect on the everyday 
lives of all Americans, whether that is pushing back on the overreach 
and the administrative uncertainty of this bureaucratic state, or 
protecting the core functions of government agencies and protecting our 
very system of government.
  The choice we have before us in this rule is clear, and we must take 
action.
  H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, ensures that the Census 
count only U.S. citizens for congressional apportionment and 
Presidential electors. This should not be a novel concept. It should 
just be a minimum standard.
  H.J. Res. 109 provides clarity in the digital assets sector, an area 
where the United States should be leading. Congress must provide clear 
rules of the road for digital asset innovators. However, the rule 
proposed by the SEC does just the opposite.
  With respect to home appliances, I think we should all agree that 
less intrusion by the government is the answer here. This 
administration's reckless pursuit of its green agenda surely could stop 
in our kitchens, can it not?
  At a minimum, we shouldn't be making living in this country more 
unaffordable than it already is by this administration. H.R. 6192 is a 
step in the right direction.
  Regarding our natural resources, our country is blessed with a 
diverse array of abundant natural resources. We ought to use those 
resources responsibly. H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, is 
responsible and worthy of our support.
  I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and 
I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous 
question and ``yes'' on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Neguse is as follows:

     An amendment to H. Res. 1194 Offered By Mr. Neguse of Colorado

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the

[[Page H2889]]

     consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 12) to protect a 
     person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a 
     pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to 
     provide abortion services. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
       Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 12.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________