Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6306) to amend the State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956 to prohibit the acquisition or lease of a consular or diplomatic post built or owned by an entity beneficially owned by the People's Republic of China, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mills), the author of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I again thank Congressman Mills for his leadership in fixing this national security vulnerability. I also thank Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Meeks, and our Committee on Foreign Affairs colleagues for bringing this critical, bipartisan bill to the floor.

This legislation will ensure that our diplomatic buildings overseas do not fall victim to the active, ongoing surveillance and espionage efforts of the Chinese Communist Party.

Mr. Speaker, I urge unanimous support for H.R. 6306, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4723) to provide for the imposition of sanctions with respect to foreign persons undermining the Dayton Peace Agreement or threatening the security of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1995, the Dayton Accords brought an end to more than 3 horrific years of war and genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina and ushered in a new era of peace.

Today, this peace is being threatened. Self-serving, corrupt politicians like Milorad Dodik are engaged in a sustained attack on Bosnia's unity, sovereignty, and multiethnic character.

As Dodik and his cronies know well, a prosperous and western-facing Bosnia and Herzegovina threatens their personal power and ill-gotten wealth. They are willing to tear the country apart to maintain control over their illicit patronage networks, aided and abetted by the destructive Putin regime, which fears Bosnia's integration with the west.

Dodik, who has been under U.S. sanctions for more than 2 years, continues to threaten secession in public interviews and through reckless and inflammatory policies.

According to Treasury, he: ``Has used his official BiH position and a network of personal ties and companies to accumulate personal wealth through graft, bribery, and other forms of corruption.''

These actions have drastic consequences. The 2024 Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that the Western Balkans will face an increased risk of localized interethnic violence during 2024.

At a time when the United States faces conflicts and crises around the world, we cannot afford to see the Western Balkans descend into chaos.

The Dayton Peace Agreement that ended the Bosnian war may be flawed, but it is holding Bosnia together during this period of rising ethnic tension, corruption, and Russian aggression. However, because of the reckless actions of a few cynical elite, Bosnia's stability and sovereignty are at risk.

As a guarantor of the Dayton Peace Agreement, the United States must use its economic toolkit to deter corruption, obstructionism, and secessionism in Bosnia and promote its accession to Euro-Atlantic institutions.

My bill, the Upholding the Dayton Peace Agreement Through Sanctions Act, does just this. Through this bill, we will impose and codify sanctions against bad actors like Milorad Dodik, who continue their agenda of secessionism, corruption, and destabilization.

Mr. Speaker, sanctions work. In a hearing before the Europe Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Deputy Assistant Secretary Gabriel Escobar shared with us that officials in Bosnia's Dodik-controlled Serb entity begged the U.S. to please, please, no more sanctions.

However, much more leverage needs to be brought to bear against Dodik's inner circle, their Russian backers, and the corrupt politicians who recklessly use their country's dysfunction to grow their power and their wealth. My bill would hold these criminals and politicians accountable and deter others who would seek to undermine peace and stability in the region.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Turner, Representative Kean, and Representative Wild for introducing this bill with me. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, February 8, 2024.

Hon. Michael McCaul,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman McCaul: Thank you for consulting with the

Committee on Financial Services regarding H.R. 4723, the

Upholding the Dayton Peace Agreement Through Sanctions Act. I

agree that the Committee shall be discharged from further

consideration of the bill so that it may proceed

expeditiously to the House Floor. The Committee takes this

action with the mutual understanding that, by foregoing

consideration of H.R. 4723 at this time, we do not waive any

jurisdiction over the subject matter contained in this or

similar legislation, and that the Committee will be

appropriately consulted and involved on this or similar

legislation as it moves forward. The Committee also reserves

the right to see appointment of an appropriate number of

conferees to any conference with the Senate involving this or

similar legislation, and we request your support for any such

request.

Finally, as you mentioned in your letter, I ask that a copy

of our exchange of letters on this bill be included in your

Committee's report to accompany the legislation, as well as

in the Congressional Record during floor consideration

thereof.

Sincerely,

Patrick McHenry,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the vice chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and as Representative of the largest Bosnian community outside of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I know what the consequences will be if we fail to stand strong against destructive politicians who seek to undo years of peace.

If we let the Dayton Accords--a symbol of American leadership and commitment--collapse, then we risk seeing violence return to Bosnia. Adversaries like Russia and China would welcome these upheavals and solidify a stronger economic and security foothold.

I remind my colleagues that Congress has acted on this once before. Last Congress, I introduced a similar version of this bill which passed the U.S. House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support.

This time, the stakes are much higher. With our adversaries emboldened like never before, Congress must act and confront these potent threats to peace and stability.

Will we turn a blind eye to corrupt autocrats like Milorad Dodik, or will we uphold the peace secured by the Dayton Accords many years ago?

To me, the choice is obvious.

Time is running out to send a strong deterrent message to bad actors intent on destabilizing the country.

Let's pass this bill again and get it to the President's desk so that the United States has the tools that it needs to break the ethnonationalist and Russian hold on Bosnia's future.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6610) to provide for the modernization of the passport issuance process, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), who is the author of this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have worked with Mr. Issa and our Foreign Affairs colleagues to bring this bill before the House today.

H.R. 6610 modernizes processing capabilities at the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs. That means new performance standards for issuing passports, new tools for our caseworkers to track our constituents' passport requests, and new text and email notifications for Americans throughout the whole passport process so they know where their applications stand and how much longer the process is likely to take.

Finally, H.R. 6610 requires the State Department to expand the online passport renewal system so that Americans can apply for and get the travel documents they need as efficiently as possible.

I commend Representative Issa for prodding the State Department to adopt the best commercially available technology solutions. The private sector has much to offer that will reduce wait times and streamline bureaucracy at the State Department.

I also thank Chairman McCaul, Ranking Member Meeks, and the bipartisan members of the Foreign Affairs Committee who voted unanimously for this bill during the committee markup.

The American people deserve a more responsive passport process when they seek to exercise their right to travel. For that reason, H.R. 6610 deserves our unanimous support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 149) condemning the illegal abduction of children from Ukraine to the Russian Federation, as amended.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of Russia's unprovoked war against Ukraine, we continue to witness unspeakable acts perpetrated by Vladimir Putin's forces. Since the start of the war, Ukrainian officials estimate that over 120,000 war crimes have been committed by lawless Russian invaders.

One of the most horrific acts being conducted by the Putin regime is the kidnapping of Ukrainian children to Russia and occupied territories. Since February 2022, more than 19,000 children have been forcibly deported from their homeland--possibly many, many more.

Ukraine's Ambassador to the United Nations has stated that: ``Ukraine has strong grounds to believe that several hundred thousand Ukrainian children were forcibly, unlawfully taken.''

Not only have these children been kidnapped and handed over to Russian families, but they have also been forced into pro-Russia reeducation systems. They are being brainwashed, taught to hate their home country and to love their oppressors, Russia.

Kidnapped Ukrainian children are being taught that Ukraine does not exist as a sovereign country and that Russia is conducting some sort of justified mission for mankind. Additionally, if they don't comply or fall in line, these children face punishment and abuse.

Russia's depravity gets even more twisted, Mr. Speaker. There are reports that kidnapped Ukrainian teenagers are being conscripted to fight in Ukraine on behalf of the Russian Federation. Ukrainian officials say Russia's efforts specifically target teenagers so that they can be turned into soldiers once they reach the age of 18.

Vladimir Putin and his commissioner for children's rights, Maria Lvova-Belova, can claim all they want that they are saving these children, but we know their true intent--the complete eradication of Ukrainian culture and identity.

Both U.S. statute and international law define genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy a people, in whole or in part, including forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I was proud to join my colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative Wild, in introducing the resolution before us today. It rightfully condemns this barbarism and calls it what it is: genocide. We were there together on the Ukrainian border. We were there and saw Ukrainian refugees and children who have suffered this kind of abuse at the hands of Vladimir Putin.

Mr. Speaker, during our markup, this resolution received unanimous bipartisan support from the Foreign Affairs Committee. Today, the entire House has the opportunity and the moral duty to denounce Russia's genocide against these children of Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, Representative Wild, for shedding light on these heartbreaking abuses.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of our colleagues to support this important resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, Vladimir Putin's barbarism knows no bounds. The actions of his lawless forces against the people of Ukraine, including the forcible deportation of innocent Ukrainian children, constitute genocide.

We have the opportunity to state that truth plainly today and to stand with the grieving families of Ukraine whose children are still kidnapped inside Russia.

Mr. Speaker, I urge unanimous support for this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not present for Roll Call votes on March 13, 2024. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 86.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not present for roll call today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 81, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 82, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 83, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 84, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 85.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was not present for rollcall votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 79 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 80.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, and I am indeed opposed to this amendment.

Madam Chair, Republicans agree that the failure of Silicon Valley Bank and other institutions last March should be studied to better understand their impact on lending and community banks. That is why the Financial Services Committee devoted much of last spring and summer to holding a series of bipartisan hearings to better understand the bank failures and their consequences. We also advanced a package of legislation in response to the bank failures.

However, studies about lending and community banks should be done by banking regulators. Such a study is far outside the expertise of the SEC and especially the Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation.

H.R. 2799 does not include a study on banking services for venture funds. However, the focus of our study is to better understand venture capital and the potential obstacles preventing their growth or hindering their ability to serve the entrepreneurs they invest in, especially for smaller venture funds outside of major financial hubs.

The study required by this amendment is materially different. The SEC is very experienced in regulating and studying venture funds, but bank lending and community banks are far outside the SEC's remit.

While I appreciate my colleague's interest in better understanding the implications of the bank failures on lending, this is not the proper package for this amendment.

For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and support the underlying legislation.

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

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Not only is this amendment problematic, but as drafted, it is also unenforceable. Nowhere in Federal law is the term ``junk fees'' defined--not in our securities laws and not in this amendment.

I know the Biden administration's financial regulators like to create new terms to advance the President's political agenda, but we shouldn't be making up new terms without defining them here in Congress.

The companies impacted by this amendment would be equally in the dark.

How can a company know if a given fee is so-called junk when neither the SEC nor the amendment can define it?

Should they just charge no fees at all, potentially putting some firm out of business?

The only fees Democrats seem to want to spare from this political crusade are those charged by the government itself. For example, the IRS charges fees to folks who pay their taxes late. I get it. No one wants to pay fees, but charging fees for a product or service is a normal part of doing business.

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

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

Madam Chair, I just want to reiterate my opposition to this amendment.

As I said, the only fees Democrats seem to want to spare from the political crusade are those charged by the government itself. As I said, the Internal Revenue Service charges fees to folks who pay their taxes late.

There is no definition of junk fee anywhere in here.

I would also like to point out to the gentlewoman from Michigan that I was a sponsor of the Families Fly Together Act which did away with additional fees for children who are accompanied by their parents on a plane. Those children get to fly free with their parents. That was my piece of legislation. It is called Families Fly Together. It was in the base legislation of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization, and it passed this U.S. House Chamber without the gentlewoman from Michigan's support.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's concern about fraud in our financial system--it is a serious problem that impacts far too many Americans. However, his intent in offering this unnecessary and unworkable amendment seems to be to ensure this bill never takes effect.

This amendment would provide State regulators and unelected bureaucrats with veto power over duly passed laws. That should concern everyone in this Chamber.

Let's dig into this.

First, the amendment is unnecessary. The Federal securities laws already include broad antifraud provisions that are designed to protect investors. The same provisions offer recourse against those who have engaged in security fraud.

The Federal securities laws also include bad actor disqualifications that prevent fraudsters from benefiting from certain privileges offered under the securities laws.

To be clear, nothing in the Expanding Access to Capital Act would modify, remove, or limit the securities laws' antifraud or bad actor provisions in any way, period.

Second, the amendment is entirely unworkable. For example, the amendment broadly states the SEC must ``consult with State security regulators.''

All States? Certain States?

If so, who decides which States?

Can one State block the law from taking effect?

Congress does not need approval from the executive branch agencies and State regulators to do its job.

Let's be serious. Fewer companies are entering our public markets than at any time in recent history, and the current SEC is ignoring its statutory mandate to facilitate capital formation.

Congress has an obligation to make law to address these glaring issues. I would welcome my Democratic colleagues to join Republicans in our efforts to help small businesses, entrepreneurs, and investors by supporting H.R. 2799.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

Madam Chair, I would mention to my good friend, my colleague, Mr. Lynch, that the preemption clauses were struck in the manager's amendment. I do certainly appreciate the gentleman's concern about fraud in our financial system. However, his intent in offering this very unnecessary and unworkable amendment seems to be to ensure this bill never takes effect.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition as I am opposed to this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the ranking member. This amendment is problematic on several fronts.

First, it is an attempt to impose more onerous disclosure requirements on actors in the private markets than what exists in the public markets. Doing so would be unprecedented, even for an overzealous regulator.

For decades, our security laws have intentionally featured vastly different disclosure requirements between our public markets and our private markets. This amendment would destroy that intentional distinction by mandating an unworkable disclosure regime on private funds that is more onerous than what is required of any public company.

The public disclosure of the type of information required by this amendment could be weaponized by activists to name and shame market participants for pursuing an investment strategy that may not be politically favorable to the progressive left.

This would be counterproductive and against the spirit of the securities laws, which are not intended to encourage investments in any one sector or type of business.

The increased compliance costs resulting from this amendment would disproportionately hurt smaller emerging funds, advisers, and investment companies, many of which are minority owned, women owned, veteran owned, and rural.

If Democrats are serious about wanting to help underserved communities thrive, they will oppose this amendment. Instead, they should support the underlying bill, which would help Americans from all walks of life realize their version of the American Dream.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, if Democrats are serious about wanting to help underserved communities thrive, they will oppose this amendment. Instead, they should support the underlying bill, which will help Americans from all walks of life realize their version of the American Dream.

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

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not present for votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 9 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 10.

personal explanation

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not present for recorded votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 692, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 693, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 694, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 695, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 696, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 697.

Personal Explanation

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise today with an amendment that would prevent the Department of Labor from finalizing its recently proposed fiduciary rule.

This proposal marks the Department of Labor's fourth attempt to issue a fiduciary proposal. Each version of this decade-long effort has drawn significant investor as well as bipartisan congressional concern. Most notably, Congress passed a joint resolution I was proud to lead that would have stopped the Obama administration's 2016 DOL fiduciary rule.

The 2016 version of the rule was vacated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in 2018 due to DOL's exceeding its statutory authority under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ERISA, in writing rules. This court-rejected proposal threatened access to affordable and reliable retirement investment advice for millions of low- and middle-income Americans.

Furthermore, this rule caused major disruptions in the market, created more retirement insecurity, and resulted in fewer product choices for America's workers and retirees.

The Obama administration's DOL fiduciary rule would have left Americans who were just starting to build their retirement savings without access to financial advice or paying more for fewer options and decreased service. The Biden administration's fiduciary rule is no different. As Chairwoman Foxx put it just the other day, the proposal, ``is just new lipstick on the same old pig.''

The last time the Department of Labor meddled with the definition of fiduciary, we watched more than 10 million Americans lose access to financial advice.

Do we really want to go down this road again when we know exactly where it leads?

The changes that the Department of Labor is proposing contain overly burdensome requirements that will increase consumer costs, limit choices, and cut off access to financial investment products that are known to provide a secure, guaranteed stream of income for retirees.

At the end of the day, many businesses offering these safe financial solutions will be forced to switch to a fee-based advisory model, which would require customers to meet account minimums or pay a large up- front fee.

Ultimately, this will shut millions of low- and middle-income Americans out of the financial advice market, and we will be left with two classes of investors: those who can afford investment advice and those who cannot.

Mr. Chairman, to put it simply, Americans are worried. They are worried about their future. They are struggling to save for their retirement, to put a child through college, or to one day open their own business. On top of all the existing barriers to saving, the Biden administration wants to make that even more challenging with its--ready for this?--500-page regulation.

We know these regulations do not work. We have seen them fail. We have seen them hurt those who can least afford it during the savings crisis.

Both Chambers of Congress, Republicans and Democrats, have come together in the past to recognize the harm that this rule will have on those looking to save for retirement.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment that protects retail investors and America's savers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, the changes the Department of Labor is proposing contain overly burdensome requirements that will increase consumer costs, limit choices, and cut off access to financial investment products that are known to provide a secure, guaranteed stream of income for retirees.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and shut down the Department of Labor's fourth attempt at a fiduciary rule that will hurt retirees and investment savers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Issa for yielding. I thank the chairman of the full Committee on the Judiciary, Jim Jordan, for his leadership and collaboration with my office in ushering this bill through the Judiciary Committee under thorough regular order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my bipartisan and bicameral bill, H.R. 1105, the Debbie Smith Act of 2023.

No woman should ever have to experience the trauma and the pain of a rape or sexual assault. Yet tragically, these crimes are far too common, and approximately one in four women will experience this horrific crime.

There must be accountability, Mr. Speaker.

That means identifying, apprehending, and prosecuting the attackers to the fullest extent of the law.

One of the most important methods of investigating these crimes is through DNA analysis. However, in 2019, the Government Accountability Office found that backlogged DNA analysis requests at State and local crime labs increased by 85 percent over the last decade, and the most recent data estimates that 200,000 sexual assault kits across the country remain untested.

This is absolutely unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.

My bill, H.R. 1105, addresses this issue directly. H.R. 1105 is a straight reauthorization of the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program through fiscal year 2029.

This vital program provides support for law enforcement in all 50 States to help police improve their procedures for collecting DNA evidence from rape kits and crime scenes; support the proper and timely analysis of this evidence with a specific priority placed on rape and sexual assault kits; audit untested DNA evidence from sexual assault cases; and it enhances the capacity of State and local prosecutors to bring these cases to court.

This program has been incredibly effective since it was first established, Mr. Speaker. Funding from this program has directly resulted in nearly 1.8 million DNA cases analyzed and processed, including over 600,000 crime scenes and rape kits.

Because of these efforts, the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program accounts for over half of all of the matches, or hits, in the Federal criminal DNA database. That is quite literally helping survivors reach the justice, the accountability, and the closure that they need.

Mr. Speaker, we must not let this program lapse at the end of this fiscal year.

I was proud to lead the previous iteration of this bill in 2019 with my dear friend Representative Carolyn Maloney. I am beyond thankful to the 85 bipartisan Members of Congress who have signed on in support of this legislation.

I also thank Majority Leader Steve Scalise and his team--you know who you are--for bringing this bill to the floor, Subcommittee Chairman

Andy Biggs for his partnership in moving this bill through the proper legislative process, as well as Senators Cornyn, Klobuchar, Graham, and the Late Senator Dianne Feinstein for their leadership in the Senate.

Through our bicameral work, this bill has only gotten stronger. We have added an important provision to ensure that a portion of the funds from this program specifically are set aside for the auditing of untested rape kits. This will support law enforcement's efforts to fully account for the rape kits in their possession so that they can be more efficiently analyzed, processed, and used to put rapists behind bars.

I thank Senator Rand Paul for this legislative contribution, and I look forward to seeing an overwhelming bipartisan show of support for this bill and this program on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I say to Debbie Smith: I have heard her calls to get this done, and I promise her this program will be reauthorized as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to prevent the Financial Stability Oversight Council, FSOC, from making it easier to designate nonbank financial companies as a systemically important financial institution, or SIFI.

The 2008 financial crisis was a result of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's poor government housing policy that bilked taxpayers out of billions of dollars and the inability of financial regulators to properly identify systemic risk and take action until it was too late.

As a response to the crisis, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. The Democrats' law has dramatically reduced competition in the banking sector, imposed barriers to entry for new banks, and saddled financial institutions with a mountain of new requirements that hit small, midsize, and regional banks particularly hard.

Under Dodd-Frank, FSOC has the power to designate companies as a SIFI and, therefore, subject to Federal Reserve supervision and enhanced prudential standards--in other words, too big to fail.

Last week, FSOC finalized guidance that would allow it to apply these same ``too big to fail'' burdens to nonbank financial institutions, such as asset managers or broker-dealers, insurance companies, and private funds.

It has been reported that the annual consumer cost of designating a nonbank financial institution as a SIFI could range from $5 billion to $8 billion, yet FSOC's new guidance fails to require any cost-benefit analysis when making such a designation. Let me repeat that one more time. These designations would cost consumers, American taxpayers, $5 billion to $8 billion per year.

This guidance put forth by the Biden administration rescinds the 2019 changes that rightfully moved FSOC's authority from an entities-based approach to an activities-based approach in determining whether a nonbank entity should be deemed a SIFI. To grant such unfettered discretionary power to a government agency should concern every American, particularly when the body exercising that power, FSOC, is composed almost entirely of members of a single political party.

Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment that reins in our regulators, restores Congress' Article I powers, and saves Main Street investors billions of dollars.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for his consideration of the amendment. However, we have, in fact, held a hearing in the Financial Services Committee about this very issue and some of the costs that I am talking about. The $5 billion to $8 billion that this would cost our taxpayers to implement was a part of that discussion within the Financial Services Committee and came from testimony directly there.

Again, these designations would cost consumers, American taxpayers, $5 billion to $8 billion per year, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that reins in our regulators, restores Congress' Article I powers, and saves our Main Street investors billions and billions of dollars.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend across the aisle for his consideration and his kind words. I would just simply urge my colleagues to support this amendment that would rein in our regulators, and I yield back the balance of my time.