Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify that when I join a Congressional Caucus, it does not necessarily mean that I agree with every position of the Caucus. At a minimum, my membership indicates that I seek to learn more about related issues and legislative agendas, and I look forward to a robust dialogue on topics under consideration by the Caucus. In particular, as mentioned by my colleague, Congressman Brad Schneider, in his announcement of the Family Business Caucus, membership in that Caucus is open to all Members of Congress seeking to learn more about generationally owned family business issues.

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a resolution to roll back sanctions and then hope that maybe we will reimpose them on some other basis not detailed by the gentleman from Florida. This is not some meaningless resolution to feel good about or to message about. It has practical consequences.

How many more people would Assad have been able to kill if he had the chance to cooperate economically with businesses here in the United States? How many other dictators would feel free to develop chemical weapons, would feel free to murder their own people and feel that they would face no economic consequences from the United States?

Our policy has not turned Syria into a garden spot.

What would the world be like if America turned its back on the crimes of Assad? Assad has killed more than half a million of his own people and forced 12 million people to flee.

These particular sanctions are imposed on the Assad regime specifically because of his support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Think of that. We are having the President of Israel come here tomorrow, and what would we greet him with but nothing but a rollback of sanctions against two terrorists organizations who are trying to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible every day of the week.

I think for us to be considering a pro-Israel resolution on this very floor in a few hours, for us to be welcoming the President of Israel tomorrow, and to have a resolution on this floor that would say it is okay, support Hamas, support Hezbollah, watch them try to kill as many Israelis as possible--they are not always successful, but they are trying--I can't think of a more effective way to insult the President of Israel when he stands on that podium and addresses us tomorrow.

Let us continue to do what we can and remember that these sanctions do not expose a single American serviceman to risk of death or risk of injury. We should at least be willing to use the economic power of the United States to do what we can to rein in Syria and to make it clear to other dictators that chemical weapons, mass murder, and support for terrorism is not something that we will ignore.

Mr. Speaker, this is an excellent resolution. Israel is not a racist or apartheid state. Congress should and does reject all forms of anti-Semitism and xenophobia, and the United States will always be a staunch partner and supporter of Israel.

However, why are we taking this up today?

We are taking this up today because one of our colleagues from the State of Washington made a statement and then withdrew it.

The question is: Why didn't we take up this resolution when Nick Fuentes, a Holocaust denier, was honored by the former President and given a chance to have dinner with the former President at his home in Mar-a-Lago?

That is when we should have dealt with this resolution.

We should have taken up this resolution when Kanye West had the honor of dinner with Donald Trump, the former President of the United States.

We should have taken up this resolution when our colleagues, Mr. Gosar and Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, both at different times joined Fuentes on stage, and in each case after they were denounced for the anti-Semitic act of lending their authority to Mr. Fuentes, these individuals did not withdraw, they did not apologize, and they did not condemn Mr. Fuentes.

So we should believe in this resolution every day, and if we are going to allocate floor time, it should be when Holocaust deniers are honored by our colleagues and by the former President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this resolution today, but I will believe in this resolution 365 days each year, including those days in which certain others do something outrageous.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 334, H.J. Res. 70.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleagues Congressman Jim Costa and Congressman Raul Grijalva, to pay tribute to our long-time friend and advisor Michael Fraioli, who passed away after a courageous battle with leukemia.

Mike was a devoted husband and father and is survived by his wife of 27 years, Carol Eickert, his beloved children Michelle and Matthew, and his brother Tom. A Central Valley kid, Mike was born in Modesto, California and was a long-time resident of Chevy Chase, MD. After working in his hometown of Modesto on the successful campaign electing Tony Coelho to the U.S. House of Representatives, Mike moved to Washington, D.C. to begin his long and successful career in politics as a strong Democrat.

Mike was the founder and owner of Fraioli & Associates, where he advised some of the highest-level Democrats in Congress and was a vocal advocate for a variety of labor organizations including IAMAW, IBEW, and AFL-CIO. Mike made an indelible impact on both my political journey and my life. I had the honor to work with Mike since 1996, a few months before I was elected to Congress. I spent thousands of hours with Mike over a period of 27 years--and I enjoyed every hour.

As I reflect on Mike's life, I am reminded of his unyielding belief in the power of organizing and the necessity of empowering individuals to shape their own futures. He was a tremendous advocate and friend. His passing leaves a void not only in the realm of politics but in the hearts of all who had the honor of knowing him.

We would like to extend our sincerest condolences to Mike's wife Carol, and his children Michelle and Matthew.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 2622, sponsored by the gentleman from Texas. To put this in context, we have one regulatory scheme to deal with broker-dealers and another to deal with registered investment advisers.

Traditionally in the United States, a broker-dealer is only registered as a broker-dealer, subject to that regulatory scheme, and the broker-dealer not only executes transactions but also gives advice and does research.

Our friends in Europe have required that under certain circumstances, a broker-dealer must charge separately for the research and advice on the one hand and for the execution of the transaction on the other.

Following that pattern would ordinarily cause that broker-dealer to be subject to that second regulatory scheme, the regulatory scheme for registered investment advisers. It is appropriate that since 2017 the SEC has had a no-action letter, saying that if broker-dealers under these circumstances do not register as investment advisers, the staff of the SEC will recommend to the board that it take no action, no enforcement action. Basically, it is a pass for the broker-dealer to follow the European rules but not register as a registered investment adviser, continuing to be subject to regulation only as a broker- dealer.

Now, this bill in its original form would have made this no-action letter, this pass permanent, but several investor groups expressed concerns about that original version of the bill. For example, a joint letter from the Council of Institutional Investors, the CFA Institute, and others argued against taking that approach without further thought.

During the committee markup, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer) offered an amendment to change this bill from the permanent exemption to instead only relief for 6 months. It requires the SEC to study the impact of letting the no-action letter expire, something that the Financial Services Committee is very interested in understanding.

The bill would also review other tangential issues, including conflicts of interest and the provision of financial services by middle-market financial intermediaries.

With Mr. Gottheimer's amendment adopted, I think this bill is a reasonable compromise, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

There is an image in the country that nothing is getting done in Washington, that we are tied up in partisan knots. As the gentleman from Texas points out, this bill passed our committee 45-2. Congress continues to function, although it is much more exciting for the press to cover the fights than the progress.

The amended version of H.R. 2622 being considered on the floor today represents a bipartisan compromise. It gives the SEC the time to address potential concerns laid out by stockholders related to the no- action letter for broker-dealers that offer research services from needing to register as investment advisers.

It is a well-thought-out response to our current situation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and yield back the balance of my time.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 1548, the Improving Access to Small Business Information Act, sponsored by Representative Young Kim from the great State of California.

The Paperwork Reduction Act mandates that all Federal agencies receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget before putting forth a paper form or survey that will impose an information collection burden on the general public.

Although this is well-intentioned, the Paperwork Reduction Act may often prevent Federal agencies like the SEC from obtaining data from the public, the very data that assists agencies in carrying out this mission.

This bill streamlines the ability of the SEC's Advocate for Small Business Capital Formation to carry out its mission by exempting it from the requirements of the Act in the same way that a sister agency, the SEC's Investor Advocate, is currently exempted.

In effect, it enables the small business advocate to properly conduct its job, which will strengthen the ability of the SEC to craft regulations that help small businesses raise capital.

I also want to note that as part of the negotiations that resulted in this bipartisan compromise bill, Chairman McHenry and Ranking Member Waters agreed that in the months ahead they will work together on bills to strengthen the independence and capacities of the investor advocate and of the small business advocate at the SEC.

These two offices, both of which are congressionally created, must be given sufficient resources to satisfy their unique roles within the SEC. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close if the gentlewoman from Missouri has no further speakers.

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

I commend the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim) for her excellent work on this bill.

H.R. 1548 streamlines the ability of the SEC's small business advocate to better support small businesses' efforts to raise capital. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Missouri for reprising for us the proud history of the United States Marines, and I join her in support of H.R. 1096, the 250th Anniversary of the United States Marine Corps Commemorative Coin Act, sponsored by Representative Seth Moulton of Massachusetts.

I want to thank Representative Moulton, first, for his service in the United States Marines and, second, for offering H.R. 1096. I also want to mention Senator Blumenthal for leading the Senate version of this bill.

This important legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to mint a series of commemorative coins honoring the 250th anniversary of the United States Marine Corps in 2025.

These coins will be sold to collectors at a profit. The sale of these coins will then support programs for the Marine Corps Heritage Foundation, which funds programs for the National Museum of the Marine Corps. The museum has been open since 2006, allowing the public to honor the Marine Corps and learn about its important work, as well as allowing for the storage of artifacts and research. The foundation also supports educational programming and cultural events.

Representative Moulton, as a proud marine, has been a tireless advocate in advancing this legislation to commemorate this important anniversary.

The Marine Corps has protected the United States for two-and-a-half centuries and deserves the highest level of

honor, including the minting of these commemorative coins. I am so appreciative of their dedication to this important issue and am pleased to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in that support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton), the sponsor of this legislation.

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

H.R. 1096 will commemorate the important 250th anniversary of the creation of the United States Marine Corps.

I am pleased that my colleague, Representative Moulton, chose to champion this issue so that we can all honor the work of the Marine Corps in protecting our freedom and our liberty over the past two-and- a-half centuries.

Madam Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today is a proud day for California, but particularly for the San Fernando Valley.

Hundreds of Members of this House did their best to protect America from Donald Trump, but only one did it so well that he is the focus of this ridiculous resolution. He was effective, he was direct, and Donald Trump has demanded that he be attacked.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Adam for doing his job so well. California is proud, and America is grateful.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 835, the Fair Investment Opportunities for Professional Experts Act sponsored by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill). This bill passed the committee by voice vote. I was there. I didn't hear a single ``no'' vote.

This bill deals with the overall process of investing in stock being sold by the company to investors to raise

money. We see this happen through public offerings, and most of us one way or another or through a pension plan are invested in publicly traded stocks.

The process for a company to go public is an expensive one, and so smaller companies also do private offerings.

We have a process of restricting investments in these private offerings to those who can afford and understand the risks and those who understand that they can't necessarily sell the security that they have purchased readily.

We do need a framework for accredited investors who are allowed to buy in these private offerings. Up until now, our definition of accredited investor has focused too much on wealth or income of the investor and not on the expertise of the investor.

This bill, I think, moves us in the right direction as far as allowing those with expertise to invest. I also look forward to narrowing the definition of those or eliminating those from investing solely because they are wealthy. Just because you have a million dollars does not mean that you have understanding or knowledge.

The accredited investor framework protects the general public from being sold high-risk, illiquid private securities. This is because private securities do not come with anywhere near the same level of financial or other disclosures to investors that public securities do. Nor do private securities come with the same legal protections for investors and oversight from the SEC and State regulators as compared to public securities.

Finally, they don't come with the same level of liquidity and ability to sell or a posted price where you can be assured that there is a big public market, and you know what the fair price is.

Both accredited investor bills being considered on suspension today aim to return to this concept of accredited investor but focus on the knowledge of the investor as to the high-risk nature of the private security offering.

We all know that just because you have a million dollars does not mean you understand the complexities of the private markets.

Conversely, you should not be prohibited from investing in these products if you do have knowledge of the risks involved but don't happen to have a million dollars.

This is why it is so important for the SEC to update its definition of accredited investors to protect investors who are not sufficiently informed while creating pathways for those who are or those who make themselves sufficiently knowledgeable.

Mr. Hill's bill would allow individuals with certain credentials, such as an MBA or a FINRA certification--that is a certification from the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority that would allow one to actually be a broker-dealer. People who meet those two qualifications would be deemed accredited investors without reference to their income or wealth.

I am under no illusion about the riskiness of these products. We will all hear the stories. Every friend I have who goes to Vegas and tells me about it, comes back saying they won everything. I have nine other friends who go to Vegas. They never tell me how well they did.

Likewise, we all will hear about somebody who invested in Apple at the beginning, but nobody talks about their investment in pear, tangerine, or kumquat.

This is an opportunity to make a lot of money. It is also an opportunity to lose a lot of money. I believe that the reforms to the definition of accredited investors are necessary and fair, and this bill is a reasonable expansion of the definition of people who can be expected to have the requisite knowledge or expertise to make an informed investment about the very risky private securities.

I support this bill. Every voice on the committee supports this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

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

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

The accredited investor framework is in need of improvement. Today, millions of families can be targeted to invest in high-risk, illiquid, nontransparent financial products solely because of the inflated value of their assets, putting at risk their ability to live comfortably in retirement. At the same time, others who are knowledgeable are prevented from investing.

When the accredited investor framework was first established by the SEC in 1982, less than 2 percent of our population could be solicited by broker-dealers or companies raising capital on the basis of their income or on the basis of their assets.

Today, that has risen to 20 percent. That is not because investors are more knowledgeable and it is really not because there are more investors who can afford to take major losses. It is simply because we have had a lot of inflation since 1982, and so you can meet the asset requirements with real estate and your retirement nest egg.

To be clear, no one thinks that the amount you need for your retirement in 2023 is the amount you needed in 1982. That is why the SEC needs to revise the thresholds to better protect working families.

That said, Mr. Hill's bill is sensible. It would return to the original concept of the accredited investor, focusing on investors who are knowledgeable about the risks of private securities.

I would also point out that while we are protecting investors, another function of our securities laws is to help companies raise capital and, obviously, this bill will help many companies to raise the capital they need to expand; so I believe that is a balanced bill.

I look forward to other steps to change the accredited investor framework. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1579, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The Accredited Investor Definition Review Act is, of course, sponsored by the gentleman from Michigan. The accredited investor definition is out of date and needs changing. A lot of these comments relate to the comments I made on the previous bill.

The current definition is based on wealth, which is not really a proxy for an individual's knowledge or experience. It may, in part, be a proxy for their ability to absorb losses; but the wealth standard was established in 1982 and hasn't been revised, so it was either wrong then or it is wrong now.

Further, the amount of wealth required to meet the accredited investor threshold, of course, has been eroded and, as I said speaking of the prior bill, has gone from 2 percent of our Nation to 20 percent of our Nation.

So we need to define who Wall Street can sell risky and illiquid products to, and not those who have created a nest egg, which is so much smaller than the nest egg in terms of purchasing value that we required when these standards were developed.

The SEC may establish a definition to protect working families from these

high-risk products, while allowing those who are knowledgeable to make the investment.

Mr. Huizenga's Accredited Investor Definition Review Act reaffirms the authority of the SEC to review the credentials that will qualify an accredited investor and update the list of credentials. This ensures that the definition is not stagnant and changes with the times.

As a result, more investors will have access to private markets while ensuring that they have the adequate knowledge base to understand the risks involved.

I would add that perhaps wealth shouldn't be an entryway to investments. It should be exclusively based on one's knowledge. If we did that, we would want to look not only at the knowledge of the investor, but the knowledge of their advisers, but only if those advisers were truly independent, because an investor being advised by someone who earns a commission or someone who gets referrals from the promoter is not a truly independent adviser.

So this bill moves us forward to doing something that should have been done many years ago. We are stuck with rules drafted in 1982. This bill requires the SEC to begin the process of revising those rules. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers and I am prepared to close. I yield myself the balance of my time.

I want to respond to the comments from the gentleman from Michigan to some degree. I think I speak for the majority of the Democratic Caucus that we have a balanced view. We want investor protection, and we want investments to be made in private offerings by those who understand the risk and understand the company they are investing in.

The idea that we would open the door to every investment and allow an unlimited number of people with no particular expertise or meeting other standards would mean that we wouldn't have any initial public offerings. Every company would become a public company. We wouldn't have an SEC. That is not where we want to go.

This bill is consistent with that balanced view. The gentleman from Michigan also says he thinks the SEC is being distracted and is not carrying out its core mission.

Just today, they went after a crypto exchange, and I can't think of anything more essential to their core mission.

Another controversy is whether investors in public companies will be given information about the environmental and carbon effects of the company. Many investors want that information, and giving investors information that many of them want is a core definition of the SEC.

Finally, the gentleman from Michigan puts forward a very inaccurate view of our current law. It is not true that you can't invest in your brother-in-law's pizzeria unless you have a million dollars in net worth. If that were true, I couldn't get a pizza on Ventura Boulevard.

The fact is that we do allow up to 35 unaccredited investors in private offerings, and the vast majority of what we think of as the really small businesses, the ones up and down Ventura Boulevard--the pizzeria, the restaurant, whatever--fit into that category.

We do have a securities law system that works pretty well. We can improve it. This bill does that. The SEC should amend its accredited investor definition to better protect investors and retirees from being solicited for high-risk, unsustainable products just because they meet an asset threshold that hasn't been revised in 40 years.

I urge the SEC to review that asset threshold as part of the periodic review required by this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to support a balanced investor protection regime, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do have a question for the chairwoman of our subcommittee. We are taking these bills in a different order than I was told. We are now dealing with H.R. 2593. Will we then return to H.R. 2608 and H.R. 2610?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, the one person that may be most surprised by us going out of order is the author of this bill, Mr. Gottheimer. I know he is on his way now to this floor, so in order for him to get here before he would have expected to be needed, I will speak very slowly.

Mr. Speaker, I rise slowly in support of H.R. 2593, the Senior Security Act sponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey, who is on his way to this floor right now.

Scams targeting seniors, which can include harassing robocalls and phone calls impersonating the government, cost older Americans more than $36 billion a year, according to the National Council on Aging. According to AARP, these kinds of senior scams have more than doubled just since 2020.

Financial scams can leave a devastating and lasting impact on our seniors, causing significant financial loss. Recovering lost funds is a very challenging process, and in many cases, the money is simply not retrieved.

Scams also lead to significant emotional distress, resulting in feelings of embarrassment, guilt, shame, and a diminished sense of self-worth. The emotional impact can exacerbate health conditions or lead to depression and anxiety. Once scammed, seniors might lose trust in people, which can lead to further isolation and reluctance to seek help.

Mr. Gottheimer's bill takes key steps to help protect older Americans nationwide from getting scammed out of their hard-earned money by establishing a senior investor task force within the SEC. This 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.

I will also point out that this is important for our capital markets and for companies trying to raise money because every time a senior is subject to one of these scams, others become less interested in investing, and we need Americans to feel that they are protected and not cheated when they invest in stocks, bonds, and our capital markets.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I am pleased that the gentleman from New Jersey has arrived, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer), the author of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill passed in committee 49-0. Our seniors are particularly vulnerable to financial scams. As Members of Congress, we must work to find effective ways to protect seniors from scamsters and fraudsters.

Mr. Gottheimer's bill, a bill I commend him for drafting and one that, once again, got 49 votes to 0 in our committee--I commend him for crafting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2608, sponsored by the gentleman from North Carolina.

I want to put this bill in context. The first two bills we considered in this session dealt with private offerings, where there is very limited investor protection and where there are requirements as to who is allowed to invest.

We are now focusing on public companies where there is a lot of investor protection and where anyone can invest and anyone who buys can then freely sell it to anyone else.

Just as by way of illustration, we are talking about, in this bill, whether there will be 2 or 3 years of audited financial statements for certain public companies. That differs from the private offerings that we considered in the first two bills. Private offerings are not required to have any audited financial statements.

A special accommodation has been made to emerging growth companies, known as EGCs, who are obligated to provide 2 years of audited financial statements when they first provide an initial public offering.

Other companies, on the other hand, are required to provide 3 years of audited financial statements when they go public. In some situations, however, an EGC must provide 3 years of audited financials, including cases where they acquire another company.

This bill would recognize that whatever standards we have when the company first goes public, those standards being for 2 years of audited financials, I think are logically applied in certain other circumstances. One of those is where the company goes to the public a second time for a follow-on offering, and the other is when the company uses its stock to acquire a company.

We have a rule that, for the most important gatekeeping requirement, says 2 years of audited financials. This bill would provide that same standard for emerging growth companies in these two other types of situations. This will harmonize the EGC framework, making sure that these smaller reporting companies have a scaled-down obligation but still do provide 2 years of audited financials.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This bill passed our committee by a 41-to-0 vote. In passing H.R. 2608, Congress is making sure that smaller companies have scaled-down disclosure obligations in all instances rather than just the initial public offering. We apply the same standard to acquisitions and follow- on offerings. This is a commonsense reform. It reduces the burden on small companies and still provides investors with 2 years of audited financial statements.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2610, sponsored by the gentleman from North Carolina, the chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, both this bill and the last bill we considered are seeking to reduce the obligations of emerging growth companies, or EGCs.

H.R. 2608 would allow an EGC to provide only 2 years of audited financial statements in the case of an acquisition or a follow-on offering. We just passed that bill on this floor by a voice vote. We are now considering H.R. 2610, which takes that concept one step further and allows an EGC to provide only 2 years of audited financial statements in the case of a spinoff.

Logically, if we are going to adopt that bill, we should adopt this bill.

A spinoff transaction is one where one company creates a new independent company by selling new shares of its existing business.

Both H.R. 2608, which we just passed, and this bill, H.R. 2610, reduce the obligations for EGCs by saying that they need to provide not 3 years of audited financial statements but 2 years of audited statements.

We should keep in line what is required for EGCs, whether they are going public, whether they are acquiring, whether they are doing an initial public offering, or, as this bill does, whether they are doing a spinoff.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the House, just a few minutes ago, adopted on a voice vote, H.R. 2608. That bill had passed the committee by a vote of 41-0. This bill is extremely similar, except it passed the committee with a vote of 42-0.

H.R. 2610 will ensure that there is uniformity regarding EGCs' financial disclosure obligations, in this case, in the event that an EGC conducts a spinoff.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2793, the Encouraging Public Offerings Act of 2023, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Missouri.

I think the gentlewoman has laid it out clearly. We are talking here about the process by which a company goes public, and this allows the company to do two things before they go public.

One of those is to confer with prospective investors, and the other is to get a nonpublic review by the SEC staff of their registration statement.

This process of allowing these things to happen has been tried with ESG companies. The SEC has now adopted it as a policy for other companies, and now this bill would codify that decision.

I should point out this bill came before our committee, and the vote was 39-1. This bill codifies the recent SEC rule that allows any issuer, not just an ESG, to submit a confidential draft of their registration statement for nonpublic review.

This bill also allows the issuers to confer with prospective investors; in effect, testing the waters about whether a public offering makes sense.

By freeing all issuers to use these two methods and codifying the SEC's administrative action, we can provide all companies with the assurance that these tools will be available to them.

This bill codifies, as I have said, the 2019 SEC rulemaking that allows

issuers to test the waters before going public.

This allows the issuer to gauge interest in their public offering by talking to certain institutional investors without first needing to file a registration statement.

Given the cost of going through the entire process, it only makes sense to allow companies to talk to institutional investors before they decide to go public and commit themselves to that large cost.

Overall, this makes it easier for companies to access our capital markets to get the capital they need to grow their businesses.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is one that should be adopted. The vote in committee was 39-1. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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