Providing for Consideration of H.R. Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act; Providing for Consideration of H.R. Equal Representation Act; Providing for Consideration of H.J. Res. Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under the Rule Submitted By the Securities and Exchange Commission Relating to ``Staff Accounting Bulletin No. and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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 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.

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.

Ross).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

Stansbury).

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

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

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

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NEGUSE. 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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source