Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the right to contraception for all Americans.

Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas' concurrence to the Dobbs v. Jackson's Women's Health decision called for the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider the right to contraception.

Emboldened by this statement, Republican-controlled state legislatures across the Nation began limiting access to birth control.

Nine states have already adopted restrictions to emergency contraception.

I stand with my colleagues, Congresswoman Manning and Senator Markey, as they reintroduce the Right to Contraception Act.

Last year, this bill passed the U.S. House with a bipartisan vote of 228-195.

I am proud to be a part of the effort to bring this important issue into legislative focus and protect women's health.

This bill sets out statutory protections for an individual's right to access and a health care provider's right to provide contraception and related information.

Generally, the bill prohibits measures that single out and impede access to contraception and related information. However, a party may defend against a claim that a measure violates the bill's prohibitions by demonstrating, through clear and convincing evidence, that the measure significantly advances access to contraception and cannot be achieved through less restrictive means.

The Department of Justice, individuals, or health care providers may bring a lawsuit to enforce this bill, and states are not immune from suits for violations.

This Act would codify into law a person's right to obtain contraceptives and to engage in the use of contraception.

It would also define and protect a health care provider's corresponding right to prescribe contraception and to provide information about the use of contraception to their patients.

The ability to make personal choices about one's own body is a fundamental human right.

The right to contraception is internationally recognized by the World Health Organization, and by the United Nations as intrinsically linked to women's health, economic mobility, and self-governance.

Birth control pills, IUDs, and other forms of contraception are all forms of safe and essential healthcare.

They are central to women's ability to participate equally in the workplace, in academia, and in society.

Contraception allows individuals, couples, and families to be in control of their own futures.

Contraception can allow a young woman to achieve her dreams of earning a college degree.

It can allow a young couple to prioritize their careers before raising a child.

It can allow parents to focus their financial and emotional resources on the care of a special needs son or daughter.

It is a tool that allows those who wish to become parents, and those who do not, the agency to make the decision that is best for them.

A 2010 study found that access to contraceptive care resulted in approximately one million fewer unplanned conceptions per year.

That is one million fewer children born into families who are unprepared to support them.

When access to contraceptives is limited, more children are born into lives of difficulty and hardship.

The ``Right to Contraception Act,'' would help ensure that children are born into families who are eager, equipped, and prepared for their arrival.

The right to contraceptives has long been an expectation held by the American people.

In 1965, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Griswald v. Connecticut affirmed a married couple's right to birth control. In 1972, Eisenstadt v. Baird protected that right for single people. Then in 1977, the right to contraception for minors was secured in Carey v. Population Services International.

For more than 50 years, the right to contraception has been settled law.

That is, until the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, when five conservative Justices chose to let their personal opinions and beliefs supersede decades of established precedent by overturning women's right to abortion.

Since then, the American people have witnessed the abhorrent consequences of Republicans' radical agenda to criminalize women's reproductive health decisions.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas made it very clear that the extremist ruling that ended Roe v. Wade could be used to chop away at other rights--including the right to access contraception.

Reproductive rights opponents are now including emergency contraception, IUDs, and other forms of birth control in their anti- abortion legislation.

These anti-abortion laws shackle women to unwanted pregnancies.

Conservative lawmakers now seek to stop women from exerting agency over the prevention of pregnancy, as well.

If a woman is not permitted to end a pregnancy, and she is not permitted to prevent a pregnancy, I ask, what rights to her body does she have left?

Even before the barbaric Dobbs ruling, conservative lawmakers across the country have been moving to limit women's ability to make decisions about their own healthcare and bodies.

In 2021 alone, at least 4 states attempted to ban access to some or all contraceptives by restricting public funding for these products and services.

Those laws work in conjunction with actions conservative legislators in red states have taken to curtail funding for family planning services at reproductive health centers like Planned Parenthood.

Such actions would limit access to birth control, particularly for Black and Brown low-income women.

We cannot allow human rights to be so callously stripped away from the American people.

We must fight back and codify these rights into law.

Mr. Speaker, I am excited this week to introduce H. Res. 505, a bill to again commemorate and honor Juneteenth.

Juneteenth should be a holiday that brings all Americans together because it is about freedom, freedom of a people. It was when General Granger came to Galveston, Texas, with General Order No. 3, to release the slaves who had been held an extra 2 years because a State would not listen.

It is a holiday that brings us together. There will be commemorations in Galveston. There will be commemorations in Houston, Texas, proudly bringing people from all ethnic backgrounds together, from Friday all the way to the Juneteenth holiday.

I am very proud to acknowledge Opal Lee, the grandmother of Juneteenth, who brought a million petitions here to say that we need a Federal holiday.

I am proud to honor the late Representative Al Edwards, who introduced the first bill to make it a State holiday in Texas. I was very glad to be inspired by him and mentored by him to introduce the Federal legislation, introducing the resolution for 10 years and then finally achieving my goal, our goal, to have a Federal holiday.

It is a holiday for all people. Let us celebrate Juneteenth on June 19. Do something in your community that heals, welcomes, and joins each community together.

It is about freedom of a people, freedom of America, and our wonderful democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

This really is about saving lives. Eight children a day die from gun violence. In addition, 40,000 Americans die from gun violence throughout the year.

I thank Congressman Thompson of California for making clear what we are saying here today. A veteran can buy a brace any day of the year.

We love, respect, and admire our veterans. However, at the same time, we respect our first responders, police officers, firefighters, and others who are on the front line or former combat officers who say that we don't need automatic weapons in the hands of civilians. There is no hunting purpose. There is no purpose.

You haven't lived until you see a shoot-out in your district between a criminal with a ghost gun against police officers. That is what we are trying to prevent. I don't want to see that in Houston, Texas, ever again.

A person can buy the brace without a background check. When it becomes a dangerous weapon, when that brace changes the gun's legal status and makes it, in essence, the same that caused a mass shooting at a Boulder, Colorado, supermarket, then the stabilizing brace and a shorter barrel made a pistol under Federal gun regulations.

Saving lives is why I am standing here on the floor. Protecting police officers and protecting firefighters is why I am on the floor. The highest calling that I have on the floor is protecting children and stopping Uvalde, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Santa Fe, and the list goes on.

A brace can be bought without a background check, and the rule that is being overturned simply says the ATF is doing the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, vote for the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak in opposition to the proposed legislation, H.R. 1615--the Gas Stove Protection Freedom Act and H.R. 1640--the Save our Gas Stoves Act.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is responsible for protecting children and other consumers from unreasonable risk of injury or death from consumer products.

The CPSC carries out its mission by investigating allegations that consumer products pose an unreasonable safety risk, working with industry to develop voluntary product safety standards, issuing, and enforcing mandatory standards on hazardous consumer products, and recalling unsafe consumer products or arranging for their repair.

The CPSC has a history of protecting children and adults from safety risks across a wide range of products, including removing hazardous infant sleep products from the market, adopting corded window coverings standards to prevent strangulation of children, and working with industry to reduce the risk of fires from micro mobility devices like hoverboards and e-scooters.

Republicans are deliberately misleading the American public with this legislation, which is designed to scare consumers and, unfortunately, Republicans are ignoring the reasonable steps the CPSC has taken to study and address the hazards posed to our children by gas stove emissions.

Legitimate concerns have been raised about the health impact, particularly on children, of the nitrogen dioxide emitted by gas stoves.

Observational studies have found that children living in households that use gas stoves are 42 percent more likely to have asthma.

In December 2022, CPSC issued a recall on a specific gas stove product that was found to be a serious risk of injury or death from carbon monoxide poisoning.

H.R. 1615 would prohibit CPSC from using its rulemaking authority to ban all such hazardous products to protect to Americans.

As the Chairman of the CPSC explained earlier this year, the Commission does not have a proceeding to ban gas stoves but is researching gas stoves and exploring ways to address health risks.

The Republicans' bill peddles the lie that the Biden Administration is attempting to ban gas stoves, but the facts simply are not on their side.

H.R. 1615 will stifle scientific investigation into health hazards and create bad precedent when it comes to protecting our children from health and safety hazards.

Protecting and improving the health and well-being of our children should not be a partisan issue.

On a bipartisan basis, we should be encouraging the CPSC to explore all allegations that appliances or other consumer products put our children's health at risk and give the CPSC more, not fewer, tools for eliminating or mitigating safety risks they uncover.

It is unconscionable to limit the CPSC's options for addressing the potential risks of gas stoves--a product found in homes across America--before the CPSC has fully explored the risks posed by gas stoves and potential solutions.

Efficiency standards are not bans.

Republicans are deliberately misleading the American public to prevent the Department of Energy (DOE) from fulfilling its statutory obligations and finalizing an efficiency standard that will save consumers money.

H.R. 1640 prohibits the Secretary of Energy from finalizing or enforcing a February 2023 proposed rule that would improve the efficiency of electric and gas stoves, ultimately saving families money on their energy bills.

The Republicans' bill simply peddles the lie that the Biden Administration is attempting to ban gas stoves, but the facts simply are not on their side.

DOE cannot ban gas stoves. DOE is simply proceeding with a Congressionally mandated efficiency standard.

The proposed efficiency standard will save Americans money through lower energy bills while cutting harmful indoor air pollution that disproportionately impacts children's health.

DOE's proposed rule is one of their statutorily required standards-- and it follows years of inaction and missed statutorily mandated standards deadlines by the Trump Administration.

In the Fall of 2020, multiple organizations and states filed lawsuits asserting Trump's DOE was in violation of deadlines for the review of 25 of its energy conservation standards.

This Republican bill doubles down on that legacy by obstructing DOE from doing what Congress and a court settlement have required it to do.

Republicans' fearmongering over gas stoves is nothing more than a cheap political stunt

designed to scare consumers and protect their fossil fuel friends.

H.R. 1640 prioritizes profits for Big Oil and Gas over the health and economic well-being of everyday Americans.

Efficiency standards save Americans money, while the Republicans' bill will only increase energy costs for Americans and pad the pockets of their fossil fuel friends.

Republicans' scare tactics include pushing a false narrative about how ``96 percent of gas stoves on the market don't meet the proposed standard.''

This is simply not true.

This deliberate fearmongering is the result of Republicans purposefully misrepresenting DOE data to serve their own political goals.

The statistic Republicans are referencing comes from a DOE test of high-end models that they anticipated would not meet the standard. The test, by design, was not representative of the entire market.

The truth is, nearly half of products on the market today are already in compliance with the proposed rule, including all entry level models.

In a testament to just how far Republicans are willing to go to prop up their polluter friends, H.R. 1640 goes beyond an amendment offered by Rep. Palmer (R-AL) that was added to H.R. 1 by significantly limiting future DOE rulemaking.

This bill does not include a sunset clause--it could forever limit DOE from taking substantive action to improve the energy efficiency of Americans' cooktops.

While the Palmer Amendment would prevent DOE from moving forward with one standard related to cooktop efficiency, H.R. 1640 goes even further by amending the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to restrict DOE from taking similar action in the future.

This bill sets a bad precedent that polluters could seek to exploit.

DOE is already prohibited from banning products based on their fuel source, but H.R. 1640 adds yet another hurdle: it requires DOE to prove that a conservation standard is not likely to result in the unavailability of a product based on the fuel it consumes.

This added condition could significantly weaken and slow down DOE's ability to issue future energy conservation standards.

DOE's proposed energy efficiency standard for gas and electric stoves is smart, commonsense policy that would cut pollution, improve Americans' health, and lower energy bills. And it can be achieved using readily available design changes.

DOE's commonsense proposal will benefit Americans' health and pocketbooks.

DOE estimates the proposal will: Save consumers as much as $1.71 billion and slash nearly 22 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 245 thousand tons of methane.

These benefits would come without imposing any undue burdens on manufacturers.

DOE's proposed rule gives manufacturers three years after the date of the rule's publication to comply.

Nearly half of products on the market today are already in compliance with the proposed rule, and there are readily available design changes available for those that don't.

Energy efficiency standards are popular: three out of five Americans support stricter energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings.

It is time we stop the negativity and counterproductive efforts that are ripping apart our country, and to instead focus on coming together to work towards sensible and effective solutions that can work for the betterment and growth of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reassert my opposition to H.R. 277, the ``Regulation from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act'' and H.R. 288, ``The Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2023.''

First in addressing, H.R. 277, the REINS Act, is a measure that has been offered by Republicans dating back to 2012, is and has always been a problematic bill that would restrict agency rulemaking procedures and undermine public health and safety.

Because it would require both houses of Congress to pass, and the President to sign, a joint resolution of approval for any major rule before they can take effect, this bill would effectively act as a chokehold on Federal agency rulemaking.

I along with my colleagues have attempted to address many of the ills these bills purport by offering common sense amendments that Republicans have continued to refuse any meaningful consideration.

My amendment to H.R. 277, listed on the Rules Committee roster as Amendment #30 would have exempted from the bill the congressional approval requirement for any proposed rule that is made to ensure the safety of products used or consumed by children under the age of 2.

Without such an amendment, the RAINS act cripples the Federal government's ability to protect our children and prioritize their safety.

As it stands, this bill has no exceptions or flexibility when it comes to pressing issues of public health and safety.

It is deeply troubling that REINS Act will delay the implementation of integral new public health and safety safeguards, putting our children at risk.

As such, the REINS Act will ultimately fail to protect the public as it places an expertise-based process into the hands of the government, allowing the political games we have seen in the House this Congress to continue.

Because of the special vulnerability of young children and the distinct threat that the implementation of the REINS poses to the current regulatory process, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to H.R. 277.

Second in addressing H.R. 288, ``The Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2023'' which purports to address constitutional and statutory deficiencies in the judicial review of agency rulemaking.

Yet, this bill is a long-repeated effort to shift the scope and authority of judicial review of agency actions away from federal agencies by amending Section 706 of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to ``require that courts decide all relevant questions of law, including all questions of the interpretation of constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions, on a de novo basis without deference to the agency that promulgated the final rule, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute.

Effectively, H.R. 288 would abolish judicial deference to agencies' statutory interpretations in federal rulemaking and create harmful and costly burdens to the administrative process.

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the ability for agencies to act in times of imminent need to protect citizens.

In particular, H.R. 288 would make sweeping and dangerous changes that would jeopardize the ability of the Department of Homeland Secuirty to protect our nation in times of urgent and imminent need.

My amendment to H.R. 288, listed on the Rules Committee roster as Amendment #3 would have been a simple but necessary revision that would remedy this concern by excluding from the bill cases with rules made by the Secretary of Homeland Security and pertaining to any matter of national security.

As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I understand the many challenges the Department of the Homeland Security (DHS) already faces and its critically important role in preventing terror threats and keeping Americans safe.

The Department is the first line of defense in protecting the nation and leading recovery efforts from all-hazards and threats which include everything from weapons of mass destruction to natural disasters.

We do not need to be reminded of the heightened state of security are nation is in and the ever-increasing demands imposed upon our government agencies tasked with keeping our borders and citizens safe.

Now is not the time to undermine or slow the ability of DHS and its ability to address growing threats and active acts of terrorism.

The overall mission of DHS is too critical and its functions indispensably essential, such that it would be impugned to do anything that will slow down the process that allows DHS to do its job.

Given the absence of my essential amendment and the fact that H.R. 288 would cripple Federal agency's ability to act in times of imminent need, I urge opposition to H.R. 288.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member and certainly the distinguished Member who is managing, my friend from Texas.

Let me be very clear. I support a stabilizing brace for disabled Americans and veterans.

Could anybody stand here and disagree with that?

They were wounded in combat, and they are fighters for our freedom. It is my honor to have represented the Houston National Cemetery in Texas over a number of years.

Let me be very clear on what we are debating here today. Might I say that there are veterans in the ATF, men and women who served in the United States military who have come home to serve again. Their desire is not to violate the Second Amendment, neither is their desire to take innocent Americans in.

You can get a brace for those disabled veterans, and it is a legal process. This provision specifically is to deal with when you make it a lethal weapon to be used like an assault weapon to kill people.

I don't know why we can't be clear. Let me tell you why it is very clear. It is because we started out with this bill so many days and weeks ago, but in the midst of it, someone used the exact same brace to go into the Covenant School in Nashville and murder three 9-year-olds and three staff members. That is what the ATF is against. Eight children are dying every day and 40,000 Americans are dying throughout the year through gun violence, not your Second Amendment.

Mr. Speaker, who would even think that you could tamper with the Second Amendment?

It is in the Bill of Rights.

However, we do believe that when you have this weapon being created to be the kind of dangerous and lethal weapon to kill, Americans will stand up and say: It is not about the Second Amendment, it is about saving lives.

In Dayton 2019, 9 killed, 17 injured; Boulder 2021, 10 killed; Colorado Springs 2022, 5 killed and 19 injured; Nashville 2023, 6 killed, and children are amongst them.

This is the procedure that is used, not at a shooting range where our veterans may go, but for criminal acts that kill people.

Mr. Speaker, let's hear from the person who actually designed it. It was the creator of the SB tactical stabilizing brace who acknowledged in a 2017 interview with the editor of The Firearm Blog that many who bought the braces did so to avoid National Firearms Registration. They were going to do bad, not those good veterans.

He also said during our joint hearing last month--in answer to a question where I asked him to discuss the ATF

order--that the stabilizing brace was originally designed to allow a disabled veteran to shoot a pistol more accurately and safely.

Under this regulation, they will still be allowed to do so.

Let me be very clear. It is for veterans, and under the regulation of ATF, who is full of combat veterans themselves doing their duty to this Nation, who looked at this and said they cannot stand for more children being murdered by someone taking a brace--not disabled at all--but to make a steady aim to kill and take innocent lives.

I commend the ATF for its fortitude. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the work we need to be doing right now, passing the Kimberly Vaughn Firearm Safe Storage Act, extreme risk protection laws, and an assault weapons ban that more than 200 persons voted against but the right people voted for, this is not an injury to our veterans. It is saving lives.

Who would stand up here against a veteran?

Nobody. However, I am going to stand up here against the killing of children.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in Opposition to H.J. Res. 44, which opposes regulation of stabilizing braces--one of the modifications the shooter used to blast their way into Covenant School in Nashville and murder three nine-year olds and three staff members.

After this shooting occurred, the Judiciary Committee postponed the markup of this resolution of disapproval, which was originally scheduled to take place the day after the shooting.

For some reason, which I do not claim to know, Republicans didn't want to talk about stabilizing braces then. But less than a month after more Americans learned that children would never again come home or go to school, Republicans decided that the time was right to hold a markup of this resolution.

It took just twenty-two days for Republicans to move on from the tragic loss of life--of children--and get back to the business of supporting and protecting the gun lobby.

Now here we are today--while the wounds of that tragic day are still fresh--not to vote on a bill to make sure this deadly modification never ends up in the wrong hands again but to make it easier to purchase and possess them.

Instead of offering legislation to address the problem of gun violence or to tackle public safety issues, Republicans are here today to shake their disapproving fingers at the ATF for doing its job and to uplift the very modification used to slaughter nine people and injure 17 in downtown Dayton, Ohio; to massacre ten people, including a police officer, at a supermarket in Boulder, Colorado; to murder five people and injure 19 at a club in Colorado Springs; and as I said--most recently--in Nashville, to kill children and the people who cared for them.

Had the rule on stabilizing braces been in place at the time, these murderers might have been deterred--and lives saved--by the National Firearms Act registration requirements, which include an enhanced background check.

Although my Republican colleagues see fit to abolish or defund ATF or ``zero out their salaries''--when it became obvious that stabilizing braces had become a workaround against the short barreled rifle rules, the subject-matter experts at ATF exercised their statutory authority-- granted by Congress--as a regulatory agency--to implement, clarify, and interpret the terms and requirements within its jurisdiction, including application of the National Firearms Act.

I should point out that it was under the previous administration that ATF first concluded that stabilizing braces were being designed to avoid NFA requirements.

And it was the creator of the SB Tactical stabilizing brace who acknowledged in a 2017 interview with the editor of The Firearm Blog, that many who bought the braces did so to avoid NFA registration. He also said during our joint hearing last month to discuss the ATF--that the stabilizing brace was ``originally designed to allow a disabled veteran'' shoot a pistol more accurately and safely. Under this regulation, they will still be allowed to do so.

I commend the ATF for having the fortitude to press forward despite the unfair attacks and bullying by House Republicans--including their December 2020 letter to then Attorney General Barr and ATF Acting Director Lombardo--to provide guidance to prevent the harm created by certain stabilizing braces that convert firearms into concealable, killing machines.

And let me be clear. We all know that this resolution is not particularly about the ATF, disabled veterans, or even stabilizing braces. This resolution is about allowing more guns on the street and in our communities.

Our divisions could not be clearer--as Republicans continue to put more guns, that are more dangerous, in more hands.

They want unfettered access to more guns--to be used against women; more guns to be used against children in their homes and in their schools; more guns to be used against law enforcement--against people shopping in grocery stores--and against people enjoying a night out with friends.

Democrats, on the other hand, will continue to support the ATF in its efforts to address gun violence and to promote commonsense laws that keep Americans safe--like the Kimberly Vaughan Firearm Safe Storage Act, Extreme Risk Protection laws, and an Assault Weapons ban that more than 200 Republicans voted against and could have yielded a much different result in mass shootings that have become an American way of life.

That is why I urge my colleagues to vote no to this dangerous resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues of the Congressional Black Caucus for holding this special order today to give recognition and to celebrate National Caribbean American Heritage Month.

National Caribbean American Heritage Month was officially signed into law in 2006 to help create and disseminate knowledge about the rich culture and contributions of Caribbean people to the United States.

This is a special time when we honor the achievements and dreams of the millions of people of Caribbean origin now living in the United States, while also giving life and remembrance to the shared history of joy and perseverance that has united and enriched lives throughout and across the United States and the Caribbean for centuries.

Since our Nation's founding, generation after generation of immigrants have helped build this country, and the prosperity and opportunity that draw so many immigrants to America would not be possible without the contributions and legacies of Caribbean Americans.

Today, millions of Caribbean Americans strengthen our country through their vibrant cultures, traditions, languages, and values.

Yes, Caribbean American entrepreneurs, scientists, medical professionals, teachers, artists, police officers, athletes, and contributors in every field have left a lasting impact on our society and continue to greatly impact our nation's growth and development as a global mecca for advancement and opportunity.

Approximately 4.5 million Caribbean immigrants resided in the United States in 2019, representing 10 percent of the Nation's 44.9 million total foreign-born population.

Close to 90 percent of immigrants in the United States from the 13 Caribbean countries and 17 dependent territories come from one of four countries: Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Haiti.

The Caribbean is the most common region of birth for the 4.5 million Black immigrants in the United States, accounting for 46 percent of the total. Jamaica (16 percent) and Haiti (15 percent) are the two largest origin countries for Black immigrants.

Although Caribbean Americans continue to succeed in the United States, we must acknowledge the barriers and disparities that they continue to face.

And as members of the Congressional Black Caucus, we must look to address all barriers for Black immigrants and protect Caribbean Americans, including but implementing comprehensive immigration reform.

America's strength is rooted in its diversity, which is why it is of incredible importance to honor Caribbean Americans not just this month, but every month.

Madam Speaker, today, I rise to acknowledge June 6, 1944, D-Day, the day the largest land, sea, and air attack came to Normandy to fight Hitler. It was an unbelievable surge of power for freedom.

Just a few years ago, I had the privilege of commemorating D-Day at Normandy and being able to see the rows and rows of those who died in the name of freedom. Nine thousand of the Allies died, men and women, men in particular, from the United States of America.

I honor them today and recognize that as we stand in this place, as we debate on this floor, we have the responsibility to pay tribute to why they fought for freedom and their love of America. We have the responsibility to do the right thing for the American people.

That is why I stand today to raise an issue that has plagued us over and over again, and that is the enormity of gun violence, the proliferation of guns, and the loss of life of our children. Violence is impacting our children every single day.

Yesterday, we held a powerful hearing to talk about how we can stop this gun violence. We heard from people who were victims, like Lloyd Gock, a victim of the Monterey Park shooting. His words rang so powerfully. He heard 42 gunshots, and he heard the bodies dropping, 11 dead and 9 wounded. He understands that a weapon of war should not be on the streets and that we should ban assault weapons.

We also heard medical testimony, or professional health testimony, that indicated that storage, as indicated in the Kimberly Vaughan Firearm Safe Storage Act, would be most helpful in saving the lives of children. Some 4 million children live in homes where guns are laid around and not stored. They lose their lives there. Every single day, eight children lose their lives by way of gun violence.

What about Mr. Kling from the Giffords organization that says 6,500 veterans die every year due to gun violence, to suicide? It is imperative that we understand that their weapon of choice is a gun. Some would say that they are suicidal, that they have mental issues.

It is the proliferation of guns--red flag laws, banning assault weapons, raising the age.

We all still feel the pain of many shootings, but we feel the pain of Uvalde. I have come to know those families and the elected officials there who have been in pain, the city that has been in pain. The families and children remain in pain.

You see how many of these small caskets they had to watch being buried in that community when a child, yes, under the age of 21 got a gun online. How outrageous is that?

I stand here today saying: Are we going to keep the promise of those who laid their lives on the line for a free nation, or are we going to continually be against what is right?

Let me quickly indicate that we must do something about the massive evictions across America. People are unhoused and need more housing. I am going to fight against the high numbers of evictions in all of our communities and will introduce legislation dealing with eviction. I want to bring it down in Houston and cities around the Nation.

As well, I want to make sure that whatever rights we have, all people deserve the same rights, and that is access to freedom, justice, and equality and to recognize their diversity and access to healthcare.

It was the Democrats who saved Medicaid when a million people were going to lose their Medicaid. Had we followed the leadership of our friends on the other side of the aisle, with their early bill H.R. 1, 1 million people--but we stopped it. We are stopping the default and negotiating away the idea of taking a million people off of Medicaid, their lifeline for healthcare.

It is extremely important that we recognize that men and women laid down their lives or put on the uniform unselfishly. They do so so that freedom can be for every American.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania and my good friend from Kentucky for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely important to assure the American people--and particularly my husband, Dr. Lee--and to proclaim, which we have the ability to do as Members of Congress, that no one's gas stove will be lost or taken.

In fact, I even heard Members say that they are buying a gas stove or getting a gas stove. Let me proclaim again: No gas stove will be taken from any American ever--ever.

It is interesting to be on the floor fighting about freedom and protection of a gas stove. Needless to say, today is June 6. I stood earlier today to honor D-day. I know what those men died for. It is important to be able to protect consumers from dangerous explosions of any kind, and that is all that our agencies are doing.

Again, I proclaim that no one's gas stove is being taken away.

We will be debating freedom of a gas stove, protection of a gas stove, when eight children per day are dying because of gun violence.

I only want my constituents in Houston to know, my constituents in Texas to know, my constituents in the Nation to know, as we represent the entire Nation: No one's gas stove needs protection or freedom because there is an agency that, prospectively, in 3 years, is looking to ensure that all gas stoves are safe. We owe that to the American people.

I have now for the third time been engaged with the REINS Act. Please let me explain to you what that is. It is literally a stop sign of the executive functioning. If a regulation is abusive to the American people, we can file lawsuits, as often happens, to challenge that, and that would be individual consumers or companies. When you have a regulation, it takes at least almost a year for the input of the American people to be able to say this is a regulation that works or not, except the REIN Act will require the Congress to intercede every moment.

Accordingly, if it is about asthma, if it is about heart disease, if it is about good medication, and a regulation comes out, you won't get it because the Congress will have a rein around it. It will be a stranglehold, and we will get nothing done.

The separation of powers, I have done that before, as well, out of Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for her kindness.

All that will do is end separation of powers and basically say that the courts--not because a petitioner or plaintiff has gone in but because the Congress intercedes and wants the court to stop lifesaving regulations that can be helpful to the American people.

Therefore, I know that we have to do our duty and be here today. I honor, again, the men and women who serve in the United States military and particularly those at Normandy on this day, of which I had the privilege of being there some years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I end my remarks by saying that the American people need us to be serious. Houstonians need us to be serious. Texans need us to be serious. I am saying that no one's gas stove will be removed from their house or their apartment, but we will offer you the ability and the instruction to make sure that everything you have in your home is safe for you and your family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 835, the Fair Investment Opportunities for Professional Experts Act.

H.R. 835 would expand the eligibility criteria for an accredited investor for purposes of participating in private offerings of securities to include an individual determined by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to have qualifying professional knowledge through educational or professional experience.

The current definition of an accredited investor relies on a net worth threshold for individuals and households irrespective of the sophistication of the would-be investors.

Traditionally, the accredited investor threshold has been determined through asset and income tests, resulting in both an under- and overinclusive definition that leaves out sophisticated investors who may not meet financial thresholds while including a wealthy person with no experience in financial markets.

Excluding these individuals unfairly limits Americans' participation in capital markets.

This bill would increase the total number of Americans eligible to purchase restricted securities.

H.R. 835 would amend the Securities Act of 1933 to codify certain qualifications of individuals as accredited investors for the purposes of the securities laws.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1579, the Accredited Investor Definition Review Act of 2023.

This bill revises who may be considered an accredited investor for purposes of participating in private offerings of securities.

Certain unregistered securities may only be offered to accredited investors.

Specifically, the bill allows the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) discretion in determining what certifications, designations, or credentials investors must possess for purposes of investor protection, provided that the credentials are at least as broad as the existing regulations.

Additionally, the SEC must review these credentials every five years.

This bill amends the definition of investor in the Securities Act of 1933 by adding the following language:

``(C) an individual holding such certifications, designations, or credentials as the Commission determines necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors, where such list of certifications, designations, or credentials shall be no less broad than those certifications, designations, or credentials described in the amendments made to section 230.501 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, by the final rule of the Commission titled `Accredited Investor Definition' (85 Fed. Reg. 64234; published October 9, 2020).''

This amendment will give small business startups and everyday citizens in Houston and around the U.S. the opportunity to participate in the growth and success of our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2593, the Senior Security Act of 2023.

This bill establishes the Senior Investor Taskforce within the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The taskforce must report on topics relating to investors over the age of 65, including industry trends and serious issues impacting such investors, and make recommendations for legislative or regulatory actions to address problems encountered by senior investors.

The Government Accountability Office must report on the financial exploitation of senior citizens.

The proposed taskforce would do the following:

A) identify challenges that senior investors encounter, including problems associated with financial exploitation and cognitive decline;

B) identify areas in which senior investors would benefit from changes in the regulations of the Commission or the rules of self- regulatory organizations;

C) coordinate, as appropriate, with other offices within the Commission, other taskforces that may be established within the Commission, self-regulatory organizations, and the Elder Justice Coordinating Council; and

D) consult, as appropriate, with State securities and law enforcement authorities, State insurance regulators, and other Federal agencies.

The Government Accountability Office Study will observe the economic costs, frequency, and policy responses of the financial exploitation of senior citizens.

The Taskforce and the study that it will conduct is important because it will help prevent the financial exploitation of senior citizens.

The Taskforce and its study could also inspire legislation to prevent the financial exploitation of senior citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on H.R. 2608, a bill to amend the Federal securities laws to specify the periods for which financial statements are required to be provided by an emerging growth company, and for other purposes.

H.R. 2608 would change the reporting period for financial statements submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by an emerging growth company (EGC) or former EGC when it acquires another company.

The bill would ensure that EGCs and former EGCs submit financial statements for their target companies that cover a reporting period that does not exceed the earliest audited period for the EGC or former EGC, as presented in connection with an initial public offering.

Under current law, when reporting to the SEC, acquiring companies (including EGCs) must submit up to two years of financial statements for their target companies.

H.R. 2608 is a measure that will limit the financial information an emerging growth company must submit to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Specifically, an emerging growth company is not required to present a financial statement for any period prior to the earliest audited period of the emerging growth company in connection with its initial public offering, such as a statement for an acquired company.

This bill is being amended to clarify and specify language in the original text.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2610, which amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

This amendment specifies certain registration statement contents for emerging growth companies.

Additionally, the amendment permits issuers to file draft registration statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission for confidential review prior to a public filing.

Further, emerging growth companies will only be required to submit profit and loss statements from the previous two years in registration statements submitted to the SEC, rather than the previous three years currently required by law.

This bill facilitates greater efficiency and capital formation without sacrificing investor protection.

In my home state of Texas, the Houston area leads the Nation in small business development and is one of the top emerging ecosystems for startups globally.

More broadly, Texas remains the top destination in the Nation for new companies.

Under this bill, emerging companies across Texas, the City of Houston, and the Nation will better be able to explore their options for future growth, evaluate required disclosures, and thoughtfully consider whether they will proceed with their public offering.

This bill will boost these businesses and enhance their ability to catalyze economic growth and job creation nationwide.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 2610 and the economic growth of our Nation, which is fueled by these emerging growth companies.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 43, Authorizing the Use of the Capitol Grounds for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby.

The Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association shall be permitted to sponsor a public event, soap box derby races, on the Capitol Grounds.

The event shall be held on June 17, 2023, or on another designated date, whereby the sponsor shall assume full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities associated with the event.

The event shall be free of admission charge and open to the public; and arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress.

The Soap Box Derby is a youth soapbox car racing program which has been run in the United States since 1933.

It is also an event we support in my district by way of the Greater Houston Soap Box Derby (GHSBD) which is an all-volunteer, 501(c)(3) non-profit, Texas corporation organized for charitable and educational purposes.

I support the expansion of this event and all those who are dedicated to having a race program that is safe, fun, fair, professionally run, and that reaches out to all youth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2793, the Encouraging Public Offerings Act of 2023.

This bill provides statutory authority for all issuers of securities to use certain offering procedures that are available to emerging growth companies.

Specifically, the bill allows under statute issuers of securities to communicate with potential investors to ascertain interest in a contemplated securities offering, either before or after the filing of a registration statement (i.e., test the waters).

Additionally, issuers are allowed under statute to submit a confidential draft registration statement to the Securities and Exchange Commission for review prior to public filing or within one year after the initial public offering or registration.

This bill strikes ``an emerging growth company or any person authorized to act on behalf of an emerging growth company'' and inserts ``an issuer or any person authorized to act on behalf of an issuer.''

This bill further adds the following additional requirements:

(A) In general--the Commission may promulgate regulations, subject to public notice and comment, to impose such other terms, conditions, or requirements on the engaging in oral or written communications described under paragraph (1) by an issuer other than an emerging growth company as the Commission determines appropriate.

(B) Report to Congress--Prior to any rulemaking described under subparagraph (A), the Commission shall submit to Congress a report containing a list of the findings supporting the basis of the rulemaking.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it would cost an insignificant amount for the agency to justify any further rulemakings to the Congress because the SEC already allows such practices under current policy.

The Congressional Budget Office expects that the net effect on discretionary spending over the 2023-2028 period would be negligible, assuming appropriation actions consistent with that authority, because the SEC is authorized to collect fees each year to offset its annual appropriation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2812, the Middle Market IPO Cost Act.

H.R. 2812 would require the Securities and Exchange Commission to study and report on the costs encountered by small- and medium-sized companies when undertaking initial public offerings and certain offerings exempt from securities registration requirements.

The report commissioned through this bill will provide information to facilitate cost reduction for small and medium-size businesses when they conduct an initial public offering and ``go public.''

This bill constitutes an important step toward protecting small and mid-size businesses from the penalties they currently face under historic fee structures and restrictions on IPO funding.

The Houston area leads the Nation in small business development and is one of the top emerging ecosystems for startups globally.

In 2021, over 150,000 new-business applications were filed in the Houston area.

This bill will boost these Houston businesses by making it easier for them to grow and create jobs.

By going public, businesses in Houston and beyond will be able to give American families the opportunity to invest directly in their businesses and build wealth for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I stand for American families. I stand for economic growth and small businesses. This bill will equip Congress to better

understand and address the burdens and costs of conducting an initial public offering.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and in working to ensure accessible economic opportunities for all.