Expanding Access to Capital Act of 2023

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

Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate a rule to bring two more MAGA messaging bills to the floor.

H.R. 2799, which might as well be renamed the expanding access to fraud act, is yet another Republican attempt to help Wall Street and their friends at private equity firms, while undermining protections for retirees and other mom-and-pop investors. Republicans are just obsessed with helping their friends on Wall Street. It is pathological. They can't help themselves. They come to the floor and talk about helping regular people, but every single bill they pass is about helping the Big Oil companies, the Big Pharma companies, the hedge funds, and the lobbyists. Today is no exception.

Today, Republicans are also bringing to the floor H.R. 7511, the Laken Riley Act.

Let me be clear: What happened to Laken Riley is a terrible, terrible tragedy. A 22-year-old nursing student, who everyone says was a deeply compassionate person who spread joy everywhere she went, Laken had her whole life ahead of her. My own daughter is 22, and I can't even begin to imagine what this family is going through right now. My heart breaks for them, and they are in my prayers.

This should have never happened, and there is no question that the person responsible for her death should go to jail for the rest of their lives.

Madam Speaker, I have to say that I am appalled by my colleagues across the aisle who are using this horrible crime to score political points. It is really sick, to be honest. I think they ought to be ashamed of themselves, if they have any shame left.

The bill that we are dealing with here today was referred to the Judiciary Committee. There was no hearing, no markup. The bill wasn't even reported out of the committee of jurisdiction. I mean, my Republican friends used to say they cared about regular order. Obviously, that is no longer the case. I mean, the members of the Judiciary Committee did not even have an opportunity to be able to refine this bill or amend this bill. They just rushed it to the floor because they wanted a quick press release.

Let's call this out for what it is. We are here with this bill because Donald Trump demanded that MAGA extremists make the border their top issue ahead of the election. He wants Republicans to politicize the border at every turn, including politicizing this awful tragedy. He is calling the shots here, and he wants to use this as an opportunity to say that Democrats somehow support killers.

What a nasty, rotten thing to do, especially after Republicans are the ones who killed a bipartisan border security deal. They killed the deal, the strongest, toughest border security bill that we have ever seen come before Congress, a bill that was negotiated by a very conservative Republican Senator from Oklahoma. Rather than try to find a solution and fix the problem, Donald Trump said to them: No, I just want the issue; do nothing.

Now they have the nerve to come down here and lecture us. Give me a break.

Meanwhile, Democrats are working to actually keep our country safe. Democrats want to fix our broken immigration system. Democrats want justice for victims, and we want real solutions that help make our communities safer from all criminals. We tried to work together with Republicans in a bipartisan way, and they have rejected our attempts every single time.

By the way, Madam Speaker, I really wish our friends across the aisle would show this same passion for the lives lost to gun violence in our country every single day. Sixty people died and over 400 people were injured in Las Vegas. They were all real people: mothers, fathers, children, friends. Where was the Republican outrage then? Silence.

Nineteen kids were shot dead in their classroom in Uvalde. Nothing from my Republican colleagues, nothing at all, no action at all.

Twelve children die every day from gun violence. Where is the Republican legislation to save their lives?

If you don't want to vote for that legislation, where is the Republican willingness to allow us to bring bills to the floor to deal with the epidemic of gun violence in this country? Nothing.

The beauty of our job is that we are in a position where we can actually do something about these tragedies, Laken's and others. We could have worked together here to address this tragedy, just like we should work together to address the tragedy of gun violence. Unfortunately, Republicans only talk about crime and violence when it suits them. That is all it is: talk.

To claim that this bill is being brought forward because Republicans care about securing the border, when they tanked one of the toughest bipartisan border bills ever, is a joke. It is a joke, Madam Speaker.

Let's make something abundantly clear. This bill will do nothing to solve any of the problems at the border, not a thing. You know what this bill does? It says let's put more people in immigration detention, including those in the U.S. under a lawful status, like Dreamers and TPS recipients, but let's not allocate any more money to actually detain these people.

You have got to love these people; they are unbelievable.

Our border security already does not have the resources they need to detain everyone the law says they should detain. Why don't they have the resources to do it? Because Republicans have voted time and time again, multiple times, against providing the funding that they need. Now, the other side brings a bill to the floor not to fix a problem but to detain even more people with no new funding to do it.

You can't make this stuff up. You really can't.

These bills they are bringing to the floor, these speeches they are making about border and immigration--look at how they vote. Look at how they vote. They don't want to secure the border. They don't want to fix this issue. They want a campaign slogan for Donald Trump. That is all this is about. It has been their playbook since they took the majority last January, and it is a real shame.

Again, we have the power to do something, to actually solve some of these problems. Rather than coming together in a bipartisan way--and that is what the Senate tried to do--my Republican friends in the House have rejected every single attempt to try to find common ground to bring something forward that can actually pass the House, the Senate, and be signed into law. They are not interested in solutions; they are interested in just complaining. How pathetic.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have news for the gentleman from New York: Republicans now own this issue. Your inaction is one of the reasons why we are not making more progress on our border.

The gentleman who just spoke was in the Rules Committee last night, bragging about the fact that Republicans increased border security funding in their homeland security bill last year. He was bragging about it. Congress 101 tells us that once you pass a bill in the House, you need to send it over to the Senate for them to consider it.

The bottom line is, and maybe the gentleman has an answer to this: Why is your Homeland Security appropriations bill from last year still sitting in this House? Why was it never sent to the Senate?

Again, I say to my friends who are watching here today: Look at their actions. Don't look at their words. Look at their actions.

The gentlewoman from Indiana was talking about the negotiated bipartisan compromise in the Senate as if it was somehow a reflection of President Biden's priorities. Let me remind her that Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, said it was one of the toughest immigration border security bills that he has ever seen.

Let me also remind her that the person who was the chief negotiator, Senator Lankford of Oklahoma, is the second most conservative Member of the Senate. You can't get any more conservative than he is. By the way, the

man whom my friends are all so afraid of, Donald Trump, has said, when he endorsed Senator Lankford, that he is one of the toughest guys around on the border.

This is all about not coming up with a solution. They come to the floor and complain. They complain and point fingers, but they will not work with us on a solution. It is mind-boggling to me. It is cynical.

My friends are in charge of this place. They know that they are in charge of the House by only a small margin. They know that Democrats control the Senate by a small margin. They know we have a Democratic President in the White House.

The gentlewoman says that this is not a ploy. What else would you call it when you bring a bill to the floor that bypasses the committee of jurisdiction and no amendments can be made in order?

You bring it to the floor and know it is going nowhere in the Senate and know it will not become law. What do you call that? It is either a ploy or a total waste of time.

We spend an awful lot of time doing nothing around here, yelling and screaming, but when it comes to actually solving problems, my friends don't want to do it.

My friends, because of your inaction, because of the bills that you have blocked repeatedly, including a supplemental request by President Biden for an additional $13 billion for border security, your actions have resulted in our not being able to make more progress.

So, my friends own this issue. You own the border security issue. You own the fentanyl issue. You own all of it.

I think the American people are seeing through all of this.

The idea that you would bring a bill like this to the floor to exploit a terrible tragedy, a bill that will do nothing and a bill that you know is going nowhere, is really, really sad.

I have news for my Republican friends: If you want to get stuff done, you have to work with us.

I get it. You are in charge. You will probably get more than I would like you to get, but the idea that somehow you are in control of everything and that this is a dictatorship--not yet. Not yet. I know that may be something we might have to deal with down the road, but not yet.

Right now, we are still a deliberative body. This is still a democracy. If you want to get stuff done, then you have to work with us in a bipartisan way.

Nonetheless, if this is all about show business and press releases, then fine. Have at it. Give more speeches, more complaints, but I am telling you, the American people are getting tired of it.

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

Will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I have to say facts are important things. There have been no hearings on this bill. There was no markup, and there was no vote to report the bill out of committee. That is a fact.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

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

Mr. Speaker, this place is no longer a serious place. My friends are turning the House of Representatives into a debate club. None of this is serious.

The gentleman comes up and tries to claim there was regular order here, that the committee of jurisdiction actually did its job because half of the bill maybe was the subject of a hearing previously. Now my Republican friends are coming to the floor praising half regular order. I don't know. When I was in grade school, 50 percent was a failing grade. My friends are failing on regular order.

If the gentleman was serious about this and my friends on the other side of the aisle wanted to get something passed, my colleagues would conduct themselves in a different manner and actually have regular order and invite Democrats to be able to offer ideas and try to work things out to see whether the majority could have a bill that actually had a chance of going anywhere in the Senate or being signed into law, but that is not what is happening.

The gentleman comes here and starts reading the names of victims. I could sit here and read the names of the 21 victims in Uvalde who were murdered by a man with a gun. I could go right down the list and start naming all the children that were killed, all the mothers and fathers that were killed.

The real challenge for this institution is to actually try to come together in a bipartisan way and solve problems and do something. I don't know how my friends could go home and claim that they are doing anything and be able to point to anything that ever makes it past the finish line.

We are in a divided government. I wish we weren't. I wish Democrats were in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, all at once. We would get a lot more done. When we were, we actually got some stuff done.

However, that is not the reality, and so we have to deal with the reality. The reality is, if my colleagues want to get anything done, work has to be done in a bipartisan way, and my colleagues have to respect at least some semblance of regular order. That this bill had to be rushed to the floor with not a single hearing, with no markup, no amendments, no nothing, and the committee of jurisdiction never even had a chance to report it out, it is awful.

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

Since the wrongly decided Dobbs decision, every State across America has taken action on abortion in some way. Unfortunately, many Republican-led States, cheered on by Republican Members in this Chamber, have passed laws to either ban some or all abortion care.

Republicans have made it crystal clear that banning abortion nationwide is their goal. Additionally, if trying to ban abortion care is not dangerous enough, extreme Republicans are now doubling down on their attacks on women's reproductive freedom by supporting a bill to ban IVF nationwide. That would criminalize reproductive healthcare.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Brown) to discuss our proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2021, U.S. citizens made up 86 percent of convicted fentanyl drug traffickers, 10 times greater than convictions of illegal immigrants for the same offense. Also, over 90 percent of fentanyl seizures occur at legal crossing points or interior vehicle checkpoints, not on illegal migration routes, so U.S. citizens who are subject to less scrutiny when crossing legally are the best smugglers.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the Cato Institute entitled, ``Fentanyl is Smuggled for U.S. Citizens by U.S. Citizens, not Asylum Seekers.''

Mr. Speaker, I will say to my friend from Indiana, my Republican friends now own this issue. The majority had a chance to do something, and my friends on the other side chose to not do anything. My colleagues chose to follow the orders of Donald Trump.

Let me read to you the quote from Oklahoma's own senior Senator, James Lankford, and he said this on FOX News. He said: ``Are we, as Republicans, going to have press conferences and complain the border is bad and then intentionally leave it open?'' That is exactly what House Republicans are doing, complain, complain, complain, and then say, no, no, no, we don't actually want to do anything about the border. We just want to complain.

Again, let me read that one more time. This is Senator Lankford, the second most conservative Member of the United States Senate, who said: ``Are we, as Republicans, going to have press conferences and complain that the border is bad and then intentionally leave it open?'' That is exactly what House Republicans are doing, complain, complain, complain, and then they say, no, no, no, we don't actually want to do anything about the border. They just want to complain.

Senator Tillis, hardly a progressive, who had been working on this deal, called on House Republicans as well, and he said: ``Don't pretend that the policy,'' meaning the policy they negotiated, ``isn't strong. If you want to admit you're just afraid to tell President Trump the truth, that's fine.'' But for you to take a look at this framework and say it is a half measure, you are not paying attention, or you are not telling the truth.

Mr. Speaker, again, this issue now is wholly owned by my Republican friends, and every opportunity to try to do something, from rejecting President Biden's request for additional funding for border security to telling the Senate that any border security bill is dead on arrival, that is now with you, and so my friends on the other side own this.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say two things. First of all, yelling doesn't solve the problem; and, two, nobody on this side of the aisle is glossing over this issue.

I have just spent the last 30 minutes telling my colleagues how ridiculous the legislation my Republican friends are bringing to the floor is and complaining about the fact that, every chance my colleagues get to fix the problem, my friends on the other side choose not to.

By the way, it wasn't my words that I was quoting. It was Republican Members of the Senate, impeccably conservative Senator Lankford, Senator McConnell, Senator Tillis. It was my Republican colleagues.

I get it. My friend is now making it clear. It is either his way, or the highway. Well, that is not a good attitude to have when you are in a divided government, but if that is what it is, that is what it is.

I remind my Republican colleagues when they keep on bringing up their vaunted H.R. 2--by the way, I will say to the gentlewoman from Indiana, I think that is more than two words--last week, Senator Cruz from Texas basically had an amendment to the CR to bring up H.R. 2, their bill, their solution. It got 32 votes--32 votes. That is less than a third of the Senate.

I don't know about my colleagues, but I think that is a pretty good indication that H.R. 2 isn't going anywhere. It is dead. Therefore, maybe we ought to come together and figure out what we can do together. For the life of me, I don't understand why Republicans are reluctant to do that.

This is not a debate club. It is not supposed to be a debate club. This is supposed to be a place where we solve problems and pass legislation to help protect and defend this country. Instead, all we get treated to are press release bills, MAGA bills, yelling and screaming and whatever, but never, never, never a solution.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, despite the very real domestic and global challenges facing our Nation, House Republicans have chosen to waste time on sham impeachments, silly censures, and extreme policies that will never become law, and the two bills that this rule would bring to the floor, they fall into that category.

This is not serious legislating by any measure. Democrats have come to the

table with real solutions on the border, real solutions on immigration, and instead what we get is garbage like this.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Republicans own this issue. Their side owns this. They own the border. They own the fentanyl crisis. They own all of it because they repeatedly reject our attempts to work together. That is both on border security and nearly everything else that has been brought up in this Congress.

Because of that, because Republicans absolutely refuse to work with House Democrats, the Democratic majority in the Senate or the Democratic-held White House, because House Republican leadership continues to bow down to the most fringe, MAGA Members of their ultraslim majority, this body no longer functions under regular order.

In fact, we don't function. This is not functioning. The last bill to become law that came through the Rules Committee was 9 months ago.

Let me repeat that: The last bill to become law that came through the Rules Committee was 9 months ago. House Republican leadership has lost six rule votes since January 2023, and every week there is a legitimate question of whether Republicans even have the votes to pass their own rules and bills.

I have never seen such dysfunction. I have never seen such incompetence. House Democrats have rescued this failing House Republican majority at nearly every turn. Last year, House Democrats ensured that the U.S. didn't default on its debt. That was a big deal because if we didn't help, we would have defaulted on our debt.

House Democrats have kept the government running, despite GOP leadership wasting time pursuing unrealistic draconian spending cuts. It has been our votes that have kept the lights on since September.

We believe in governing. We believe that shutting the government down is a bad, terrible, awful idea. House Democrats have advocated time and time again for viable solutions that tackle the important issues the Americans most care about, but--and here is the sad thing--Republicans would rather play partisan politics like politicizing this horrific crime than do anything to actually keep our country safe.

There is an opportunity here. The stars are aligned. Conservative Republicans are working with moderate and progressive Democrats and working with the President of the United States to try to come to some sort of a compromise that will make a difference, and the response by the House Republicans is forget about it, my way or the highway. No. Donald Trump says we need the issue. Don't ever come up with a solution. Don't solve problems. Let's just keep the issue. Let's keep the press releases coming. Let's continue to exploit tragedy after tragedy after tragedy. Enough.

Again, this is not a debate club; this is the United States House of Representatives, and all of us, Democrats and Republicans, have an obligation to do our job, to make sure we keep the government running, to make sure we are solving problems.

I plead with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us and with the conservative Republicans in the Senate. Let's do something, but instead we have got this. How pathetic.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, ``no'' on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2799, a bill that would cause significant long-term harm to both small businesses trying to raise money and mom-and-pop investors trying to save for their retirements.

A primary reason our capital markets are the envy of the world is because investors have confidence in the financial products that they are investing in. That confidence is hard won to be sure. It is the result of a robust disclosure regime that has been in place for decades and requires public companies to transparently and accurately tell investors about the inner workings of their businesses, their financials, and the risk involved with purchasing their shares.

Investor confidence is also rooted in strong legal protections for investors and their right to have a say in the company's direction through the proxy process.

And importantly, investor confidence is based on having a strong enforcer, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, that sets clear rules of the road, and keeps fraudsters out of the system.

While our capital markets are far from perfect, trillions of dollars are invested every year because investors are confident that they won't be ripped off.

Unfortunately, the bill before us today threatens to undermine that investor confidence.

First, H.R. 2799 would expand the number of companies that are able to offer securities without needing to register with the SEC or provide critical disclosures to ordinary investors.

This expansion will only benefit moderate to large companies rather than the small businesses this act purports to help. By exempting more companies from public SEC registration requirements, this bill expands the size of the private securities markets, which are growing rapidly and already outnumber the public securities markets 2-1.

Second, this bill makes it easier for financial middlemen to peddle opaque, illiquid, and high-risk private securities to retail investors who won't receive the information they need to make informed investment decisions.

This isn't democratizing finance or creating investment opportunities; this is Wall Street creating another target to dump its bottom-of-the-barrel investment products onto retail investors.

Private securities, compared to public securities, are significantly more risky and more volatile, less transparent, harder to cash out, and have fewer legal protections.

The bottom-of-the-barrel private securities that will be sold to retail investors as a result of this bill are especially dangerous because they will only be offered to retail investors after private equity and venture capital funds have already passed on them. It is important to notice that 90 percent of startups fail and private equity would love to dump these stocks on your constituents.

Third, H.R. 2799 undermines the ability of State securities regulators to help small businesses raise capital and stop fraudsters. State securities regulators are on the front line of our capital markets, investigating complaints of investor fraud, enforcing State securities laws, educating investors about their rights, and helping small businesses raise money to fund their goals and comply with the law. We should not preempt States by blocking these important overseers from doing their jobs.

To summarize, H.R. 2799 is a Wall Street wish list that collectively exempts big corporations and investment funds from transparency and accountability while gutting critical legal safeguards for Main Street investors. By weakening investor protections in numerous ways, this bill would allow fraud to proliferate and retirees and other mom-and- pop investors to be ripped off by bad actors.

This bill would ultimately harm confidence in our capital markets while doing nothing to assist the very small businesses the bill purports to help. In fact, as investors lose confidence in our markets, small businesses will see their capital costs rise, not fall.

I want to thoroughly debunk the notion that this bill somehow helps small businesses because the truth is that it would do just the opposite. I am very supportive of small businesses.

In fact, I have worked extensively this Congress with Chair McHenry on bipartisan ways that we can help small businesses raise capital. We have worked together to strengthen crowdfunding and to change the rules on accredited investors. There are several policy solutions that we have agreed on that represent targeted ways to increase capital formation without harming investor protection.

In fact, we worked together to pass 13 bills last year that represent bipartisan, commonsense reforms that support small businesses, enabling those who are knowledgeable about the risks of private securities to make informed investments, while ensuring robust investor protections.

Most of these bills also passed under suspension on the House floor, so there is a bipartisan way forward on this issue, but instead of working with Democrats to get these bipartisan bills to the President's desk, Republicans have packaged together this toxic combination of partisan bills and are focusing their time and energy here.

Mr. Chair, Democrats on the Financial Services Committee voted unanimously to oppose this bill at a markup last April. I urge all of my colleagues to unanimously reject it on the floor today.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee.

Mr. Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman), who is also the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets.

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

Let's be clear. This Wall Street wish list bill is going nowhere in the Senate, but we have several bipartisan bills that support small businesses and retail investors that actually have a chance of getting into law.

Chair McHenry and I have worked together for several years on legislation to strengthen our capital markets, going back to the JOBS Act and our efforts on crowdfunding and legislation to support angel investors.

In fact, this Congress, we worked extensively together on 13 bipartisan bills, including my bill, H.R. 2796, the Promoting Opportunities for Non-Traditional Capital Formation Act, which requires the SEC's Office of the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation to provide educational resources and host events to promote capital- raising options for underrepresented small businesses and businesses in rural areas and to meet annually with representatives of State securities commissions; Mr. Meeks' bill, H.R. 2795, the Enhancing Multi-Class Share Disclosures Act, which requires an issuer with the multi-class share structure to disclose certain information regarding the voting power of specified persons; Mr. Himes' bill, H.R. 2812, the Middle Market IPO Underwriting Cost Act, which requires the SEC to study the costs encountered by small- and medium-sized companies when undertaking initial public offerings and certain offerings exempt from securities registration requirements; and Mr. Gottheimer's bill, H.R. 2593, the Senior Security Act, which establishes a senior investor task force within the SEC. The task force must report on topics relating to investors over the age of 65 and make recommendations for actions to address problems encountered by senior investors.

Committee Democrats also supported several more Republican bills that help promote capital formation. We could have worked together to get these all included in the NDAA, but Chair McHenry knows why that didn't happen--Republicans blocked all of these bills from being added.

Today, Republicans are pivoting to a completely partisan approach to the issue with this bill. This is par for the course with extreme MAGA Republicans who prefer to pander to their base instead of actually getting things done.

When Republicans are done wasting their time on this extreme MAGA bill, Democrats will be ready to get to work on solutions that actually have a chance of making a difference for small businesses and retail investors.

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

Mr. Chair, the following organizations oppose this bill: the North American Securities Administrators Association, Consumer Federation of America, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, Communications Workers of America, SEIU, Steelworkers, Transport Workers Union of America, Americans for Financial Reform, Public Citizen, Center for American Progress, and Main Street Alliance.

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

Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, in all my years in Congress, this is one of the worst examples I have ever seen of a Wall Street wish list masquerading as a lifeline for small businesses and ordinary investors.

Let me be clear. This bill does nothing to help small businesses. It only helps big business avoid transparency and accountability, and that is why the Biden administration opposes this bill.

This bill does nothing to help ordinary investors. It only helps make it easier for investors to be duped by conflicted middlemen into purchasing some of the riskiest securities out there.

Under this bill, these middlemen will have free rein to mask critical details about investment risk and target elderly people and others with what they claim is a great investment opportunity that will help them build wealth but, in reality, is a fraud.

For example, these middlemen will be able to take the failing businesses off private equity balance sheets and offload them onto Main Street investors.

This bill also hinders small businesses' ability to raise money by preempting State law and preventing State securities regulators from doing their job.

Mr. Chair, we see this bill for what it is: a Wall Street wish list that throws Main Street investors under the bus.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for Main Street, not Wall Street, by voting ``no'' on this bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

This amendment sponsored by Mr. Lawler codifies a controversial Trump-era SEC rule that is opposed by many investor advocates.

The amendment allows high-risk startups to tout their businesses in front of retail investors. This is currently prohibited in part because roughly 75 percent of VC-backed startups fail.

The amendment would specifically allow angel investors and issuers to market their startup ventures to prospective investors at colleges and nonprofits, including churches.

Broadly marketing your securities to the public in this fashion-- known as a general solicitation--is usually prohibited for private offerings like these because the public nature of the market effectively makes the offering itself public, and therefore, requires registration with the SEC.

At universities and churches, students and congregants gather to learn, and they generally trust the information they receive. I don't believe these are spaces where it is appropriate to market highly risky investment opportunities.

In my own district, a church was the victim of an investment scheme in which an issuer conned the church out of nearly $6 million. I previously offered an amendment during our committee's markup last year that would prevent future frauds like this from happening again--frauds that would be further enabled by this amendment.

As such, I urge my colleagues to oppose Mr. Lawler's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, what Mr. Lawler doesn't recognize is that the underlying bill makes the accredited investor definition meaningless. All you have to do is check a box, and poof, able to invest.

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

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

Simply put, this amendment allows failure-prone startups to market their private offerings to unaccredited investors who do not fully understand the risks involved.

Colleges and churches are not the place startups should be raising money, and in general, we should not make it easier for them to push their risky private securities on unsuspecting retail investors, as this provision does.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

This amendment ignores the reality that many investors, particularly seniors, do not have access to or the ability to review electronic documents or simply do not prefer electronic delivery of financial documents. It would require investors to opt in to receive paper documents, which would effectively prevent individuals who do not have easy access to the internet from viewing important financial documents about the securities they invest in.

Several major investor advocate groups strongly oppose this bill, including the AARP, the North American Securities Administrators Association, the Consumer Federation of America, Americans for Financial Reform, and Public Citizen, to name a few.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this terrible amendment.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The name of this amendment, Improving Disclosure for Investors, is an oxymoron. It does absolutely nothing to improve disclosure for investors. Rather, by forcing them to opt in to paper filings, it would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for many investors to see what fees they pay for their funds, brokerage accounts, and retirement savings. Instead of having easy, instant access via paper copies, they would need to go online to search for that information.

This amendment is more appropriately called the improving Wall Street profits at the expense of retail investors act.

I strongly urge my colleagues to protect elderly investors and to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

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

This amendment, sponsored by Mr. Lucas, would be better titled the retirement hazard for charities and educational institutions amendment because it puts the retirement savings of public interest professionals at risk.

403(b) retirement plans cater to teachers, school administrators, professors, nonprofit employees, and healthcare workers. These individuals dedicate their lives to the public interest. They invest in the future of our children. They ensure we get the healthcare we need, even during a global pandemic, and too often, they aren't paid nearly enough to do the work that they do.

There are current restrictions on how 403(b) plans can invest their assets, and this is to ensure that these retirement accounts are generally safe investments. However, this amendment would allow 403(b) plans to invest in two types of risky, unregistered securities: collective investment trusts, or CITs, which is a type of pooled investment vehicle, and insurance products called variable annuities, both of which are considered fairly risky products for unsophisticated investors.

Madam Chair, under this amendment, neither of these products would be subject to regulation or oversight by the SEC.

More than half of all 403(b) plans are not covered by ERISA protections, meaning that this newly allowed risky investment activity would also escape the oversight of the Department of Labor.

While Republicans claim they are creating parity with 401(k) plans, this is simply untrue because all 401(k) plans are, in fact, covered by ERISA. To create true parity, we would need to restrict the sale of CITs and variable annuities to only 403(b) plans covered by ERISA.

All in all, this amendment would carve out over $1.4 trillion of retirement funds from Federal oversight. This would constitute the single largest deregulation of our capital markets in years.

Ultimately, this amendment would put the hard-earned retirement savings of public interest professionals at risk. That is why I strongly oppose it.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, by allowing unregistered financial professionals to sell unregistered products to 403(b) plans, this amendment would leave America's teachers, healthcare workers, and other public interest professionals vulnerable to losing their retirement funds.

Neither of the two unregistered products contemplated nor the sales of these products would be subject to regulation or oversight by the SEC, which allows them to skirt investor protections and exposes plan participants to greater risk of loss. Congress must do everything in its power to ensure our teachers and dedicated public servants have a comfortable retirement, but this amendment would do anything but that.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Madam Chair, this amendment would be better titled increasing investor risks.

Currently, closed-end funds, which are a type of mutual fund, are only allowed to invest up to 15 percent of their assets into private funds. This current limit of 15 percent gives closed-end funds some flexibility to invest in private funds but establishes a reasonable restriction, considering private funds are subject to less regulation and disclosure. This restriction also accounts for the fact that private funds invest in fledgling startups and distressed companies, which are significantly more risky than public securities, and most of their investments fail.

Mrs. Wagner's amendment would eliminate the restriction on closed-end fund investments into private funds, allowing them to invest up to 100 percent of their assets into private funds. Moreover, the amendment provides zero safeguards to mitigate the new risks created by this blunt deregulation.

Like all the rest of the capital markets-related amendments before us today, this one is opposed by investor groups, consumer and investor advocates, and State regulators.

For these reasons, Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, as I stated, the assets that private funds purchase are significantly more risky than public securities. In fact, 9 out of every 10 of their investments fail.

Allowing closed-end funds to invest all of their assets into private funds can be risky for America's retirement savers, who should be able to trust that these funds are safe investments for them to save for retirement.

As such, Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2799, the Expanding Access to Capital Act.

As chair of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, I am so proud of the hard work of our members in crafting this landmark piece of legislation that supports America's Main Street businesses and retail investors. I am also grateful to leadership for affirming that this bill is a crucial priority and taking action to pass this legislation in the House today.

This legislation is the culmination of four hearings that the Capital Markets Subcommittee has held this Congress, where we heard powerful testimony from 19 witnesses, including founders of both private and public companies, investors of all sizes, former SEC Commissioners, securities law practitioners, and even one of the authors of the IPO- related provisions of the JOBS Act.

As the witnesses at each of these hearings made clear, all the bills included in H.R. 2799 play a vital role in strengthening our public markets, improving access to capital for small businesses and entrepreneurs, and expanding investment opportunities for all Americans.

For example, Representative Steil's Helping Startups Continue to Grow Act strengthens our public markets, making them more attractive by allowing more companies to benefit from emerging growth company status. Representative Steil's bill also extends the maximum amount of time an issuer can remain an emerging growth company, helping to rightsize the regulatory burdens on newly public companies that are working to achieve their potential. This commonsense provision builds on one of the most successful and impactful reforms from the JOBS Act of 2012.

Representative Houchin's Regulation A+ Improvement Act improves access to capital for small businesses by increasing the amount that small companies can raise under Regulation A from $50 million to $150 million without being subject to burdensome IPO compliance requirements. In making this adjustment, Regulation A will become a more attractive pathway for small businesses to raise capital.

Our committee's legislation also expands investment opportunities for all Americans by revising the accredited investor definition to include individuals receiving investment advice on a private offering from a qualified accredited investor.

Amendments to H.R. 2799 include Representative Huizenga's Improving Disclosure for Investors Act, Representative Lawler's Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act, Representative Lucas' Retirement Fairness for Charities and Educational Institutions Act, and my Increasing Investor Opportunities Act, which gives investors greater choice and access to an asset class typically reserved for the wealthy. They are all welcome and thoughtful additions.

Together, these policies ensure that our markets are working efficiently and effectively to provide companies access to the capital that they need to innovate, grow, and create jobs, not just on the coasts but in America's heartland as well.

H.R. 2799 offers targeted, commonsense solutions that level the playing field for Main Street investors looking to save for a new home, their child's future, or retirement.

Moreover, America's IPO market has been on the decline for years due to increased regulatory and compliance costs. This package builds on the success of the JOBS Act and reins in those onerous barriers that are keeping America's innovators from seeking to enter and stay in our public markets.

The thoughtfully crafted bills in H.R. 2799 would address a multitude of inefficiencies within our public and private markets and deliver sustainable and enduring growth to our economy.

I thank Chairman McHenry for his leadership and tireless efforts in getting these bills to the floor, and I also thank the Members who have bills in H.R. 2799 for their incredible work.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams), my classmate and good friend and colleague.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Timmons), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald), my friend and colleague.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Steil), my friend and colleague.

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

I want to quickly and swiftly say that H.R. 2799 has been a wonderful collaborative effort. There are many bipartisan pieces of legislation in this bill and amendments that also received bipartisan support out of the committee.

Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to join Republicans in supporting savers, entrepreneurs, and job creators and to give them the chance to achieve their American Dream by voting ``yes'' on H.R. 2799, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my friend and colleague from New York's amendment, which would add his Helping Angels Lead Our Startups, or HALOS, Act to H.R. 2799.

Mr. Lawler's legislation is a commonsense step to promote capital formation by permanently reducing certain burdens on U.S. small businesses and entrepreneurs.

Unfortunately, when implementing the JOBS Act of 2012, the SEC complicated these events for many startups by classifying demo day discussions as general solicitations, blocking companies from being able to use common fundraising practices.

In 2021, then-SEC Chairman Clayton reformed these rules to provide relief for entrepreneurs throughout our country, and my colleague's amendment builds on this progress by adding much-needed certainty that will ensure startups can continue to access demo days without sacrificing their ability to raise capital through popular and practical regulatory pathways.

Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have recognized the need for this amendment with the current language receiving strong bipartisan support, once again, from the committee.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to adopt this commonsense amendment and help U.S. startups grow their ideas into thriving and successful businesses.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the gentleman from Oklahoma's amendment.

Under current law, Americans participating in 401(k) plans through their employer may invest their retirement accounts in collective investment trusts, CITs, and insurance company separate accounts that are exempt from the SEC's registration requirements. This exemption from SEC registration allows these products to be offered at lower costs.

However, teachers, nurses, janitors, and charity workers who participate in 403(b) plans are currently denied access to the cost- effective investments available to private workers in 401(k) plans. Importantly, investment options in a 403(b) plan are always selected by the private or public employer. As such, this amendment does not allow direct retail sales to individuals.

Moreover, unregistered does not mean unregulated. It simply means

that investment products available to 403(b) plans will not have to register with the SEC and, thus, will not have to provide a lengthy prospectus document to accompany the filing, thus keeping costs appropriately low.

The amendment preserves important protections for investors in 403(b) plans.

Mr. Lucas' amendment is a thoughtful and balanced bill to allow employees of nonprofit charities and public educational institutions in 403(b) plans to have access to the same low-cost investments available to employees of for-profit companies and other employees in 401(k) plans.

This amendment is co-led in a bipartisan fashion with support from my colleagues across the aisle, Mr. Gottheimer and Mr. Foster. On top of that, the bill this amendment is based on, the Retirement Fairness for Charities and Educational Institutions Act, passed out of the Financial Services Committee last year with very strong bipartisan support.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Madam Chair, closed-end funds are a popular tool for everyday investors who gain exposure to private markets in a safe, appropriately regulated way. Approximately 3 million Americans rely on these products to build wealth and save for retirement.

Like other investment options available to Americans looking to save for retirement, send their kids to college, or plan for the future, closed-end funds must comply with the requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Company Act of 1940.

To satisfy their regulatory obligations, closed-end funds must, among other things, register with the SEC, file annual and semiannual reports, and comply with stringent valuation and disclosure requirements. They are also subject to the broad antifraud provisions of the Federal securities laws, which provide additional protections to investors.

Unfortunately, an SEC staff position prevents registered closed-end funds from investing more than 15 percent of their total assets in private funds. This arbitrary restriction is especially harmful to low- income and middle-

class Americans who rely on appropriately regulated products like closed-end funds to access high-growth investment opportunities.

In substituting their own judgments for those of financial professionals, SEC bureaucrats have taken another step toward reserving safe access to investment opportunities for wealthy, accredited investors.

My amendment, which mirrors my bipartisan Increasing Investor Opportunities Act, would remove this arbitrary SEC staff position and allow investment professionals to determine which investments a closed- end fund should make. This would increase investment opportunities for millions of Americans and eliminate unnecessary barriers restricting investor access.

Madam Chair, I thank my Democratic friends across the aisle, including Mr. Meeks, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Nickel, for their bipartisan support of my bill on which this amendment is based.

Last year, the Financial Services Committee passed the same text that is in this amendment with strong bipartisan support. I am proud of this legislation and our committee's unwavering commitment to expanding investment opportunities for all Americans.

Madam Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks).

Madam Chair, the closed-end funds are a very popular tool for everyday investors who gain exposure to private markets in a safe, appropriately regulated way.

As I said, approximately 3 million Americans rely on these products to build wealth and save for retirement.

Madam Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, a key tenet of H.R. 2799 is to increase access to investment opportunities for everyday investors.

Under the guise of investor protection, this amendment would arbitrarily limit the amount nonaccredited investors can invest in a private offering to 5 percent of an individual's net worth.

In the Expanding Access to Capital Act, the investment cap for a single private offering is set at 10 percent of the investor's net assets or annual income, whichever is greater. Instead of using a number just pulled out of thin air, the 10 percent cap in the bill is rooted in precedent.

There is a 10 percent cap for nonaccredited investors through offerings such as Regulation Crowdfunding and Reg A+. Why would we not go with the percentage cap that is already proven effective?

Additionally, this amendment would arbitrarily cap aggregate investments across private offerings for nonaccredited investors to no more than 25 percent of their net worth. This essentially says to everyday investors that the government knows better than you how to invest your hard-earned dollars.

As I previously said, and we heard from several witnesses at committee, wealth and income should not be a proxy for sophistication. Similarly, if we want to provide more Americans the opportunity to build wealth, we cannot keep them on the sidelines.

Private offerings are often the most high-growth investment opportunities, yet they are largely reserved for high-net-worth investors. This enshrines inequity and blatantly picks winners and losers.

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about equity and ownership in the American economy, they will join Republicans in providing more opportunities to everyday investors, not less.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are serious about equity and ownership in the American economy, they will join Republicans in providing more opportunities to everyday investors, not less.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1052 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, House Resolution 1052, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of legislation.

The rule provides for H.R. 2799, the Expanding Access to Capital Act, to be considered under a structured rule. It provides for 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.

Additionally, the rules provide for H.R. 7511, the Laken Riley Act. H.R. 7511 would be considered under a closed rule, and it also provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary 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.

I begin with H.R. 2799, the Expanding Access to Capital Act. Madam Speaker, as a member of the Financial Services Committee, I am glad to see this important legislation before us today. I am also glad this rule makes in order a number of amendments, including all of the bipartisan amendments that were submitted.

In the last few years, we have seen fewer and fewer companies take advantage of opportunities to raise capital, largely due to burdensome compliance costs and regulatory obstacles.

It is crucial that American entrepreneurs have the tools they need to grow their businesses and that we create opportunities for individuals to invest and save for the future.

This bill aims to strengthen our public markets, expand options for companies to raise capital, and empower Americans, giving them more choices to invest and grow their wealth.

By cutting the red tape and creating new avenues for economic growth, we can create jobs and opportunities for American workers, businessowners, and investors. We can put America back on a path to prosperity and safeguard our future.

I am proud to have one of my own bills, the Regulation A+ Improvement

Act, included as part of this bill package. The bill would raise the cap for Regulation A and allow for more small- to mid-size companies to raise money from everyday investors.

At a time when many Americans are feeling the effects of inflation, this legislation could not be timelier. It can help create jobs and grow the economy. Our capital markets in these United States are the cornerstone of our economy and among our greatest strengths.

This bill ensures that entrepreneurs and investors can take full advantage of what our markets have to offer. Through this, we can give small businesses and investors alike all the tools necessary to achieve the American Dream.

Madam Speaker, unlike the previous bill I discussed, I am deeply saddened to be on the floor discussing the situation at hand and angry that we find ourselves here. It is unfortunate we must have this necessary conversation, driven by the tragic events such as the senseless murder of Laken Riley.

This legislation and the underlying rule are in response to the brutal murder of Laken Riley, a college student in Georgia, whose life was cut short by a suspect who was an illegal immigrant with prior arrests in both New York and Georgia before allegedly committing this crime.

This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to issue a detainer to any alien inadmissible to the United States who has been charged with, arrested for, or convicted of burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting.

As ICE describes it themselves, detainers are ``an effective tool in keeping criminals out of local communities by allowing ICE officers to take custody of criminal noncitizens within the confines of a jail.''

If the alien is not in custody at the time of the detainer, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is required to promptly take custody.

Additionally, H.R. 7511 allows States to bring civil action against the Federal Government for failing to enforce immigration laws, including parole, detention and removal, and visa sanctions that we know this administration is not enforcing. Simply put, this gives States standing in court and recourse for their constituents who are victims of the enforcement decisions, or lack thereof, by this administration; decisions that have consequences like the very ones we are talking about today.

The Biden administration's failure to secure our southern border has emboldened the criminal cartels, leading to increased drug trafficking and overdose deaths, human smuggling, and the influx of dangerous individuals into the country.

These threats extend far beyond border States, affecting every corner of our Nation. Every State is now a border State.

Unfortunately, Laken's story is not unique. Speaker Johnson recently documented over 100 similar situations where American citizens have been victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens, underscoring the urgency of addressing our border security crisis.

The border is no longer a matter for debate. It is a pressing issue, and it demands immediate action. We cannot simply hold hearings and discussions in Washington. We need real solutions to protect the American people. The President must take decisive action to secure our border, starting with signing this critical bill into law.

I look forward to the House completing its consideration of both pieces of legislation, and I urge the passage of this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, you know what is a joke? The joke is that the bill that Democrats proposed in the Senate, with some Republican support, was the strongest border bill in history. That is the joke. That bill would do nothing more than codify Joe Biden's broken border policies.

Republicans in the House won't codify asylum seekers crossing multiple countries to get to the United States. Republicans in the House won't codify letting illegal aliens into our country in record numbers. We will not normalize the broken border policies that have led us here to this point today.

My colleague claims that this is just a political ploy and that we are doing whatever Donald Trump wants us to do. We are doing what the American people want us to do. Donald Trump didn't make this a top issue for American voters. Joe Biden did. By failing to secure the border and failing to protect Americans, he has failed on every measure on this front.

Given the Biden administration's reluctance to issue any detainer requests, this bill, H.R. 7511, mandates that ICE issue a detainer and take custody of aliens who commit crimes.

In Riley's case, the suspect was arrested in Georgia for theft and fingerprinted at a time when ICE was made aware of his crime through NICS. Had this bill been in effect, ICE would have been required to issue a detainer for the suspect and assumed custody. Or if the alien had already been released by State or local law enforcement, they could have apprehended him. The suspect in the Riley case was not detained and was paroled, violating provisions in the existing Immigration and Nationality Act.

H.R. 7511 would give States standing to sue the Biden administration on behalf of its citizens for the harm caused by their failure to enforce existing immigration law.

This is not a political ploy. This is a response to a tragedy and an attempt to prevent further tragedies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: What will it take? What will it take to get Democrats to care about actual border security? How many Americans have to die of fentanyl overdoses or become victims of violent crime? What will it take?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on my colleague's comments about this not going through a regular process. That is just not really correct.

The House Judiciary Committee has held seven hearings on the state of our southern border. They also held a hearing specifically on criminal aliens and the Biden administration's lax immigration enforcement in the interior of the country. In addition, section 4 of H.R. 7511 was marked up in February.

We heard a lot from my colleague on the other side of the aisle.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the aisle says that this is on us, on Republicans, because of our inaction, but we passed H.R. 2, the actual strongest border bill that we have ever seen. We passed H.R. 2 8 months ago, maybe more, and 211 House Democrats voted ``no'' on that bill. That bill has been sitting in the Senate unmoved ever since.

Senate Republicans even rejected the disastrous border bill ultimately that originated over there that codified all of Joe Biden's terrible border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I ask: Why would this bill go nowhere? Why would we not want to hold illegal aliens accountable? Why would we not want to detain illegal aliens who commit crimes such as theft, larceny, and violent crimes? Why would we not want to move this bill forward in the Senate?

I hope that my colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle would support this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article dated October 28, 2022, in Fortune magazine by the Associated Press entitled, ``Fentanyl and related drugs are killing more people than guns and cars combined. Many victims don't realize they're even taking it.''

Mr. Speaker, even in 2021, there were double the amount of overdose deaths than firearm deaths in the United States, and the dramatic increase in overdose deaths, particularly due to fentanyl, are a direct result of Joe Biden's broken border policies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just have two words to say. H.R. 2, we passed that 8 months ago. That was the Secure the Border Act. The Democrats own that. Mr. Speaker, 211 Democrats voted against that legislation.

I would also note that, since Joe Biden took office, we have had record numbers of crossings. There has been 7.5 million people who have crossed into the United States illegally and been paroled into the United States under Joe Biden's watch, and that has been going on for 3 years under the Biden administration. Therefore, it is not Republicans that own this issue, but it is Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).

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

Mr. Speaker, we have before us the opportunity to move legislation that could unleash growth and increase prosperity for Americans across the country in the Expanding Access to Capital Act. This bill empowers Americans with the tools they need to grow their small businesses and secure their financial futures.

We need to focus on initiatives that strengthen our economy and combat inflation. However, time and time again, this administration's policies seem to hinder rather than facilitate business in America and it defies logic.

In contrast, this legislation streamlines regulations, expands opportunities for economic growth, and enables more Americans to invest in their future.

Turning to H.R. 7511, the Laken Riley Act, it aims to strengthen our immigration laws.

In H.R. 7511, we mourn the death and honor the life and memory of Laken Riley and other victims of the Biden administration's open-border policies, and we denounce President Biden's open-border policies.

We are not politicizing. This is a response to a tragedy in the hope that we would prevent a similar tragedy moving forward. No family should have to endure what Laken's family has experienced. We owe it to Laken's parents and parents nationwide to ensure something like this never happens again.

This border crisis is real. It has devastating consequences. Laken's story is sadly not unique. As the Speaker has documented, there are over 100 stories across the country just like Laken's.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the House can speak with one voice on this bill and together do what the American people have been asking us to do, which is secure the border and institute policies that will protect Americans and American families.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I would note, as a point of clarification, the legislation on the floor, there are two main parts.

The first part that the gentleman from Massachusetts was referring to did not go through committee. He is correct regarding the part that dealt with the issue with respect to ICE detainers relative to theft, burglary, et cetera.

The second half of the bill that deals with standing for States to be able to get into court to challenge the administration's lawlessness with respect to parole and asylum, that part did go through committee and was, in fact, debated.

Again, I am trying to set the record straight. I am acknowledging that the first half didn't, but the first half, the part that deals with theft, burglary, and so forth, so that we can have an ICE detainer placed on someone, is designed to deal with, in part, what we are dealing with in response to Laken Riley.

What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want to talk about and what we will not hear the President of the United States tomorrow night in this room talk about is Laken Riley.

My colleagues doth protest too much about a bill that is named after someone who was harmed, given the extent of her injuries. There is a whole website dedicated to the bills that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle find a way to name after somebody in the wake of some emergency.

The fact here is we have a young woman who was 22 years old who was killed by someone who was released under mass parole by the policies of this administration, by this President, and by this Secretary of Homeland Security. He is only the second Secretary to be impeached in the history of our country because he has violated his oath to the Constitution, ignored the laws, and endangered the American people.

The simple fact is the President of the United States and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--the radical progressive Democrats who are trying to remake America with wide-open borders--do not want to talk about Laken Riley. They do not want to talk about Kayla Hamilton, who was a 20-year-old with autism in Aberdeen, Maryland. A 17-year-old illegal alien from El Salvador was released into the country as an unaccompanied alien minor and killed Kayla Hamilton. He raped and beat her to death in her home in July 2022.

I do not believe that the President of the United States or my Democratic colleagues want to talk about Kayla Hamilton.

I don't believe that my Democratic colleagues want to talk about Aiden Clark, an 11-year-old boy in Ohio who was killed by a 35-year-old illegal alien who struck a schoolbus full of kids.

I don't think they want to talk about the 2-year-old in Montgomery County, Maryland, who was killed by somebody from Venezuela who was similarly released under mass parole under the policies of this administration, under this President, and under this Secretary of Homeland Security. They don't want to talk about that 2-year-old.

They don't want to talk about the adolescent girl who was raped by a Honduran who was released into the United States, again, under these policies. The simple fact of the matter is that is not what my colleagues want to talk about.

They don't want to talk about the young Texas girl, a cheerleader, murdered in the bathtub. She was found dead by her mom when her mom was expecting to see her at a cheerleading event subsequent to that.

They don't want to talk about that, and the President of the United States,

most assuredly, will not talk about those Americans tomorrow night in this room.

He won't. He will try to hide behind a Senate bill. He will try to hide behind a Senate bill that would have had no chance of passage. They knew it wouldn't pass. He will hide behind a bill that would have codified the mass releases that are endangering the American people, a Senate bill that would not have fixed the parole policies that resulted in the death of Laken Riley.

These are all facts that we know to be true, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to hide behind the Senate bill because they know that their policies are indefensible.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is one step in order to honor the memory of Laken Riley, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues want to, as I said before, hide behind the Senate legislation to try to suggest that House Republicans are not addressing the issue. Well, everybody who has been paying attention to the issue knows that we did, in fact, pass legislation just under a year ago that directly addresses the issues that are plaguing American citizens on a daily basis. This is a real issue.

Again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to gloss over the real impact, not just on Texans, but as the folks that I met with in San Diego last week, what is happening to them and what is happening to their schools, what is happening to their jails, what is happening to their communities; and the people in Texas who have spent $12.5 billion to try to deal with border security--now having some success, by the way--doing our part to try to hold the line in Texas.

We are seeing the flow of the cartels moving into Arizona and California, which is no great thing for the country, but it is at least trying to relieve the pressure on Texas.

Also, the number of ranches, the number of people that I deal with all the time, but also the migrants. We just gloss over the little girls being sold into the sex trafficking trade. We gloss over the family in a stash house that my friend, who is a Federal judge, had to throw the book at somebody who was using this mom and her daughter to hold for a ransom of $25,000 against somebody who was here illegally in Baltimore. This is happening every day in our country.

I-35 and I-10, the intersection in San Antonio, which I represent, is a main thoroughfare of this trafficking of human beings, and this is all happening on the watch of the executive.

My colleagues want to try to pin the failure of open borders on a Congress for failing to give, what, more legislation and tools to a President who has the tools to do what is necessary to secure the border?

President Biden could deal with the border right now--everybody knows that--by enforcing the law, by enforcing existing law, law that requires detention, law that requires that you detain people who come to the United States, who--because we are a people who want to give people some sort of chance if they are dealing with a claim for asylum because they fear political persecution or religious persecution--have to make that claim. However, most Americans believe that we detain, adjudicate the claim, determine if it is legitimate, and do not allow our government, our executive branch, our President, to make a mockery of the laws by using parole and asylum authority to flood the American people with millions of people. We know this to be true.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have literally no defense to the reality that millions have been released into the United States. Millions have been flooded into our communities, our schools, our hospitals.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle just kind of smugly smirk at what we have to deal with in Texas, what sheriffs have to deal with in Texas, what we have to deal with in our schools, in our communities, when we have to find the dead bodies of migrants on our ranches, because that is what happens.

Is the President of the United States going to sit up there tomorrow night and talk about the dead migrants that we find on ranches in Texas? Is he going to have the nerve to do that, or talk about the 53 migrants who died in a tractor-trailer in San Antonio last year in the Texas heat? Is he going to have the nerve to do that? No, because they are his policies, his choices to ignore the law.

My Democratic colleagues want to somehow say that it is on the majority when we passed legislation to try to force the President to do what his job is and his duty under the Constitution. They have the temerity to try to say it is on the majority when it is, in fact, our Democratic colleagues who refuse to actually hold the executive branch accountable, as is required under the Constitution under separation of powers.