[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 6, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H834-H842]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2799, EXPANDING ACCESS TO CAPITAL 
ACT OF 2023; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7511, LAKEN RILEY 
                                  ACT

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1052 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1052

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2799) to make reforms to the capital markets 
     of the United States, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or 
     their respective designees. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as 
     amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such further 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     on any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7511) to 
     require the Secretary of Homeland Security to take into 
     custody aliens who have been charged in the United States 
     with theft, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Maloy). The gentlewoman from Indiana 
(Mrs. Houchin) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Madam Speaker, last night the Rules Committee met and 
produced a rule, House Resolution 1052, providing for the House's 
consideration of several pieces of legislation.
  The rule provides for H.R. 2799, the Expanding Access to Capital Act, 
to be considered under a structured rule. It provides for 1 hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designees and 
provides for one motion to recommit.
  Additionally, the rules provide for H.R. 7511, the Laken Riley Act. 
H.R. 7511 would be considered under a closed rule, and it also provides 
for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their 
designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

                              {time}  1215

  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the 
underlying pieces of legislation.
  I begin with H.R. 2799, the Expanding Access to Capital Act. Madam 
Speaker, as a member of the Financial Services Committee, I am glad to 
see this important legislation before us today. I am also glad this 
rule makes in order a number of amendments, including all of the 
bipartisan amendments that were submitted.
  In the last few years, we have seen fewer and fewer companies take 
advantage of opportunities to raise capital, largely due to burdensome 
compliance costs and regulatory obstacles.
  It is crucial that American entrepreneurs have the tools they need to 
grow their businesses and that we create opportunities for individuals 
to invest and save for the future.
  This bill aims to strengthen our public markets, expand options for 
companies to raise capital, and empower Americans, giving them more 
choices to invest and grow their wealth.
  By cutting the red tape and creating new avenues for economic growth, 
we can create jobs and opportunities for American workers, 
businessowners, and investors. We can put America back on a path to 
prosperity and safeguard our future.
  I am proud to have one of my own bills, the Regulation A+ Improvement

[[Page H835]]

Act, included as part of this bill package. The bill would raise the 
cap for Regulation A and allow for more small- to mid-size companies to 
raise money from everyday investors.
  At a time when many Americans are feeling the effects of inflation, 
this legislation could not be timelier. It can help create jobs and 
grow the economy. Our capital markets in these United States are the 
cornerstone of our economy and among our greatest strengths.
  This bill ensures that entrepreneurs and investors can take full 
advantage of what our markets have to offer. Through this, we can give 
small businesses and investors alike all the tools necessary to achieve 
the American Dream.
  Madam Speaker, unlike the previous bill I discussed, I am deeply 
saddened to be on the floor discussing the situation at hand and angry 
that we find ourselves here. It is unfortunate we must have this 
necessary conversation, driven by the tragic events such as the 
senseless murder of Laken Riley.
  This legislation and the underlying rule are in response to the 
brutal murder of Laken Riley, a college student in Georgia, whose life 
was cut short by a suspect who was an illegal immigrant with prior 
arrests in both New York and Georgia before allegedly committing this 
crime.
  This bill requires the Department of Homeland Security to issue a 
detainer to any alien inadmissible to the United States who has been 
charged with, arrested for, or convicted of burglary, theft, larceny, 
or shoplifting.
  As ICE describes it themselves, detainers are ``an effective tool in 
keeping criminals out of local communities by allowing ICE officers to 
take custody of criminal noncitizens within the confines of a jail.''
  If the alien is not in custody at the time of the detainer, 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is required to promptly take 
custody.
  Additionally, H.R. 7511 allows States to bring civil action against 
the Federal Government for failing to enforce immigration laws, 
including parole, detention and removal, and visa sanctions that we 
know this administration is not enforcing. Simply put, this gives 
States standing in court and recourse for their constituents who are 
victims of the enforcement decisions, or lack thereof, by this 
administration; decisions that have consequences like the very ones we 
are talking about today.
  The Biden administration's failure to secure our southern border has 
emboldened the criminal cartels, leading to increased drug trafficking 
and overdose deaths, human smuggling, and the influx of dangerous 
individuals into the country.
  These threats extend far beyond border States, affecting every corner 
of our Nation. Every State is now a border State.
  Unfortunately, Laken's story is not unique. Speaker Johnson recently 
documented over 100 similar situations where American citizens have 
been victims of crimes committed by illegal aliens, underscoring the 
urgency of addressing our border security crisis.
  The border is no longer a matter for debate. It is a pressing issue, 
and it demands immediate action. We cannot simply hold hearings and 
discussions in Washington. We need real solutions to protect the 
American people. The President must take decisive action to secure our 
border, starting with signing this critical bill into law.
  I look forward to the House completing its consideration of both 
pieces of legislation, and I urge the passage of this rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate a rule to bring two more 
MAGA messaging bills to the floor.
  H.R. 2799, which might as well be renamed the expanding access to 
fraud act, is yet another Republican attempt to help Wall Street and 
their friends at private equity firms, while undermining protections 
for retirees and other mom-and-pop investors. Republicans are just 
obsessed with helping their friends on Wall Street. It is pathological. 
They can't help themselves. They come to the floor and talk about 
helping regular people, but every single bill they pass is about 
helping the Big Oil companies, the Big Pharma companies, the hedge 
funds, and the lobbyists. Today is no exception.
  Today, Republicans are also bringing to the floor H.R. 7511, the 
Laken Riley Act.
  Let me be clear: What happened to Laken Riley is a terrible, terrible 
tragedy. A 22-year-old nursing student, who everyone says was a deeply 
compassionate person who spread joy everywhere she went, Laken had her 
whole life ahead of her. My own daughter is 22, and I can't even begin 
to imagine what this family is going through right now. My heart breaks 
for them, and they are in my prayers.

  This should have never happened, and there is no question that the 
person responsible for her death should go to jail for the rest of 
their lives.
  Madam Speaker, I have to say that I am appalled by my colleagues 
across the aisle who are using this horrible crime to score political 
points. It is really sick, to be honest. I think they ought to be 
ashamed of themselves, if they have any shame left.
  The bill that we are dealing with here today was referred to the 
Judiciary Committee. There was no hearing, no markup. The bill wasn't 
even reported out of the committee of jurisdiction. I mean, my 
Republican friends used to say they cared about regular order. 
Obviously, that is no longer the case. I mean, the members of the 
Judiciary Committee did not even have an opportunity to be able to 
refine this bill or amend this bill. They just rushed it to the floor 
because they wanted a quick press release.
  Let's call this out for what it is. We are here with this bill 
because Donald Trump demanded that MAGA extremists make the border 
their top issue ahead of the election. He wants Republicans to 
politicize the border at every turn, including politicizing this awful 
tragedy. He is calling the shots here, and he wants to use this as an 
opportunity to say that Democrats somehow support killers.
  What a nasty, rotten thing to do, especially after Republicans are 
the ones who killed a bipartisan border security deal. They killed the 
deal, the strongest, toughest border security bill that we have ever 
seen come before Congress, a bill that was negotiated by a very 
conservative Republican Senator from Oklahoma. Rather than try to find 
a solution and fix the problem, Donald Trump said to them: No, I just 
want the issue; do nothing.
  Now they have the nerve to come down here and lecture us. Give me a 
break.
  Meanwhile, Democrats are working to actually keep our country safe. 
Democrats want to fix our broken immigration system. Democrats want 
justice for victims, and we want real solutions that help make our 
communities safer from all criminals. We tried to work together with 
Republicans in a bipartisan way, and they have rejected our attempts 
every single time.
  By the way, Madam Speaker, I really wish our friends across the aisle 
would show this same passion for the lives lost to gun violence in our 
country every single day. Sixty people died and over 400 people were 
injured in Las Vegas. They were all real people: mothers, fathers, 
children, friends. Where was the Republican outrage then? Silence.
  Nineteen kids were shot dead in their classroom in Uvalde. Nothing 
from my Republican colleagues, nothing at all, no action at all.
  Twelve children die every day from gun violence. Where is the 
Republican legislation to save their lives?
  If you don't want to vote for that legislation, where is the 
Republican willingness to allow us to bring bills to the floor to deal 
with the epidemic of gun violence in this country? Nothing.
  The beauty of our job is that we are in a position where we can 
actually do something about these tragedies, Laken's and others. We 
could have worked together here to address this tragedy, just like we 
should work together to address the tragedy of gun violence. 
Unfortunately, Republicans only talk about crime and violence when it 
suits them. That is all it is: talk.
  To claim that this bill is being brought forward because Republicans 
care about securing the border, when they tanked one of the toughest 
bipartisan border bills ever, is a joke. It is a joke, Madam Speaker.

[[Page H836]]

  Let's make something abundantly clear. This bill will do nothing to 
solve any of the problems at the border, not a thing. You know what 
this bill does? It says let's put more people in immigration detention, 
including those in the U.S. under a lawful status, like Dreamers and 
TPS recipients, but let's not allocate any more money to actually 
detain these people.
  You have got to love these people; they are unbelievable.
  Our border security already does not have the resources they need to 
detain everyone the law says they should detain. Why don't they have 
the resources to do it? Because Republicans have voted time and time 
again, multiple times, against providing the funding that they need. 
Now, the other side brings a bill to the floor not to fix a problem but 
to detain even more people with no new funding to do it.
  You can't make this stuff up. You really can't.
  These bills they are bringing to the floor, these speeches they are 
making about border and immigration--look at how they vote. Look at how 
they vote. They don't want to secure the border. They don't want to fix 
this issue. They want a campaign slogan for Donald Trump. That is all 
this is about. It has been their playbook since they took the majority 
last January, and it is a real shame.
  Again, we have the power to do something, to actually solve some of 
these problems. Rather than coming together in a bipartisan way--and 
that is what the Senate tried to do--my Republican friends in the House 
have rejected every single attempt to try to find common ground to 
bring something forward that can actually pass the House, the Senate, 
and be signed into law. They are not interested in solutions; they are 
interested in just complaining. How pathetic.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, you know what is a joke? The joke is that 
the bill that Democrats proposed in the Senate, with some Republican 
support, was the strongest border bill in history. That is the joke. 
That bill would do nothing more than codify Joe Biden's broken border 
policies.
  Republicans in the House won't codify asylum seekers crossing 
multiple countries to get to the United States. Republicans in the 
House won't codify letting illegal aliens into our country in record 
numbers. We will not normalize the broken border policies that have led 
us here to this point today.

                              {time}  1230

  My colleague claims that this is just a political ploy and that we 
are doing whatever Donald Trump wants us to do. We are doing what the 
American people want us to do. Donald Trump didn't make this a top 
issue for American voters. Joe Biden did. By failing to secure the 
border and failing to protect Americans, he has failed on every measure 
on this front.
  Given the Biden administration's reluctance to issue any detainer 
requests, this bill, H.R. 7511, mandates that ICE issue a detainer and 
take custody of aliens who commit crimes.
  In Riley's case, the suspect was arrested in Georgia for theft and 
fingerprinted at a time when ICE was made aware of his crime through 
NICS. Had this bill been in effect, ICE would have been required to 
issue a detainer for the suspect and assumed custody. Or if the alien 
had already been released by State or local law enforcement, they could 
have apprehended him. The suspect in the Riley case was not detained 
and was paroled, violating provisions in the existing Immigration and 
Nationality Act.
  H.R. 7511 would give States standing to sue the Biden administration 
on behalf of its citizens for the harm caused by their failure to 
enforce existing immigration law.
  This is not a political ploy. This is a response to a tragedy and an 
attempt to prevent further tragedies.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle: What 
will it take? What will it take to get Democrats to care about actual 
border security? How many Americans have to die of fentanyl overdoses 
or become victims of violent crime? What will it take?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Langworthy).
  Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of the new status 
quo at our Nation's borders.
  The crisis that President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas have done 
nothing to stop is now affecting every State, every town, every 
village, and every city. It is endangering the lives of innocent 
American citizens.
  A 22-year-old woman, Laken Riley, in Georgia was brutally murdered 
and taken from her family by an illegal immigrant who should have been 
locked up.
  Jose Ibarra entered the United States illegally thanks to President 
Biden's refusal to uphold our laws and secure our border. He was given 
a one-way ticket on the taxpayer dime to New York City, a city that, 
thanks to Democrats in New York, has been declared a sanctuary city. 
Again, this is a self-made, self-imposed crisis on the American people.
  After being arrested in New York City for child endangerment, Jose 
Ibarra was released back on the streets. Why, you might ask, Mr. 
Speaker? It is because of, once again, the policies of the left. New 
York State's disastrous bail reform laws have turned the State's 
justice system into a revolving door for violent offenders.
  Democrats in New York City, New York State, and right here in 
Washington know damn well that this is the result of their senseless 
policies. The Biden administration's border crisis and New York's bail 
reform have shattered lives not just in my home State of New York but 
also now in the State of Georgia.
  How many more American lives will it take for us to close the border? 
How many violent crimes will it take for this administration and 
Democratic leaders in cities and States across this country to end 
their disastrous policies that are endangering the American people and 
threatening the sovereignty of this country?
  I strongly support H.R. 7511, the Laken Riley Act, and I am a proud 
cosponsor because enough is enough, Mr. Speaker.
  House Republicans have passed one measure after another this Congress 
to bring security--real security--back to our border and real change 
that ensures that the Federal Government upholds our immigration laws. 
Our solutions have been greeted with resounding opposition from the 
same Democrats whose policies have led to this crisis on our border, 
the crisis in New York City, and now this horrific tragedy and murder 
in Georgia.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly support passage of the rule today, and I urge 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to wake up to this crisis, 
see the suffering that citizens and noncitizens alike have endured, and 
support H.R. 7511, the Laken Riley Act.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have news for the gentleman from New York: Republicans 
now own this issue. Your inaction is one of the reasons why we are not 
making more progress on our border.
  The gentleman who just spoke was in the Rules Committee last night, 
bragging about the fact that Republicans increased border security 
funding in their homeland security bill last year. He was bragging 
about it. Congress 101 tells us that once you pass a bill in the House, 
you need to send it over to the Senate for them to consider it.
  The bottom line is, and maybe the gentleman has an answer to this: 
Why is your Homeland Security appropriations bill from last year still 
sitting in this House? Why was it never sent to the Senate?
  Again, I say to my friends who are watching here today: Look at their 
actions. Don't look at their words. Look at their actions.
  The gentlewoman from Indiana was talking about the negotiated 
bipartisan compromise in the Senate as if it was somehow a reflection 
of President Biden's priorities. Let me remind her that Mitch 
McConnell, the Senate minority leader, said it was one of the toughest 
immigration border security bills that he has ever seen.
  Let me also remind her that the person who was the chief negotiator, 
Senator Lankford of Oklahoma, is the second most conservative Member of 
the Senate. You can't get any more conservative than he is. By the way, 
the

[[Page H837]]

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

  This is all about not coming up with a solution. They come to the 
floor and complain. They complain and point fingers, but they will not 
work with us on a solution. It is mind-boggling to me. It is cynical.
  My friends are in charge of this place. They know that they are in 
charge of the House by only a small margin. They know that Democrats 
control the Senate by a small margin. They know we have a Democratic 
President in the White House.
  The gentlewoman says that this is not a ploy. What else would you 
call it when you bring a bill to the floor that bypasses the committee 
of jurisdiction and no amendments can be made in order?
  You bring it to the floor and know it is going nowhere in the Senate 
and know it will not become law. What do you call that? It is either a 
ploy or a total waste of time.
  We spend an awful lot of time doing nothing around here, yelling and 
screaming, but when it comes to actually solving problems, my friends 
don't want to do it.
  My friends, because of your inaction, because of the bills that you 
have blocked repeatedly, including a supplemental request by President 
Biden for an additional $13 billion for border security, your actions 
have resulted in our not being able to make more progress.
  So, my friends own this issue. You own the border security issue. You 
own the fentanyl issue. You own all of it.
  I think the American people are seeing through all of this.
  The idea that you would bring a bill like this to the floor to 
exploit a terrible tragedy, a bill that will do nothing and a bill that 
you know is going nowhere, is really, really sad.
  I have news for my Republican friends: If you want to get stuff done, 
you have to work with us.
  I get it. You are in charge. You will probably get more than I would 
like you to get, but the idea that somehow you are in control of 
everything and that this is a dictatorship--not yet. Not yet. I know 
that may be something we might have to deal with down the road, but not 
yet.
  Right now, we are still a deliberative body. This is still a 
democracy. If you want to get stuff done, then you have to work with us 
in a bipartisan way.
  Nonetheless, if this is all about show business and press releases, 
then fine. Have at it. Give more speeches, more complaints, but I am 
telling you, the American people are getting tired of it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DesJarlais). Members are reminded to 
direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on my colleague's comments about this 
not going through a regular process. That is just not really correct.
  The House Judiciary Committee has held seven hearings on the state of 
our southern border. They also held a hearing specifically on criminal 
aliens and the Biden administration's lax immigration enforcement in 
the interior of the country. In addition, section 4 of H.R. 7511 was 
marked up in February.
  We heard a lot from my colleague on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have to say facts are important things. 
There have been no hearings on this bill. There was no markup, and 
there was no vote to report the bill out of committee. That is a fact.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle says that this is on us, on Republicans, because of our inaction, 
but we passed H.R. 2, the actual strongest border bill that we have 
ever seen. We passed H.R. 2 8 months ago, maybe more, and 211 House 
Democrats voted ``no'' on that bill. That bill has been sitting in the 
Senate unmoved ever since.
  Senate Republicans even rejected the disastrous border bill 
ultimately that originated over there that codified all of Joe Biden's 
terrible border policies.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask: Why would this bill go nowhere? Why would we not 
want to hold illegal aliens accountable? Why would we not want to 
detain illegal aliens who commit crimes such as theft, larceny, and 
violent crimes? Why would we not want to move this bill forward in the 
Senate?
  I hope that my colleagues in the Senate on both sides of the aisle 
would support this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would note, as a point of clarification, the 
legislation on the floor, there are two main parts.
  The first part that the gentleman from Massachusetts was referring to 
did not go through committee. He is correct regarding the part that 
dealt with the issue with respect to ICE detainers relative to theft, 
burglary, et cetera.
  The second half of the bill that deals with standing for States to be 
able to get into court to challenge the administration's lawlessness 
with respect to parole and asylum, that part did go through committee 
and was, in fact, debated.
  Again, I am trying to set the record straight. I am acknowledging 
that the first half didn't, but the first half, the part that deals 
with theft, burglary, and so forth, so that we can have an ICE detainer 
placed on someone, is designed to deal with, in part, what we are 
dealing with in response to Laken Riley.
  What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want to talk 
about and what we will not hear the President of the United States 
tomorrow night in this room talk about is Laken Riley.

  My colleagues doth protest too much about a bill that is named after 
someone who was harmed, given the extent of her injuries. There is a 
whole website dedicated to the bills that my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle find a way to name after somebody in the wake of some 
emergency.
  The fact here is we have a young woman who was 22 years old who was 
killed by someone who was released under mass parole by the policies of 
this administration, by this President, and by this Secretary of 
Homeland Security. He is only the second Secretary to be impeached in 
the history of our country because he has violated his oath to the 
Constitution, ignored the laws, and endangered the American people.
  The simple fact is the President of the United States and my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle--the radical progressive 
Democrats who are trying to remake America with wide-open borders--do 
not want to talk about Laken Riley. They do not want to talk about 
Kayla Hamilton, who was a 20-year-old with autism in Aberdeen, 
Maryland. A 17-year-old illegal alien from El Salvador was released 
into the country as an unaccompanied alien minor and killed Kayla 
Hamilton. He raped and beat her to death in her home in July 2022.
  I do not believe that the President of the United States or my 
Democratic colleagues want to talk about Kayla Hamilton.
  I don't believe that my Democratic colleagues want to talk about 
Aiden Clark, an 11-year-old boy in Ohio who was killed by a 35-year-old 
illegal alien who struck a schoolbus full of kids.
  I don't think they want to talk about the 2-year-old in Montgomery 
County, Maryland, who was killed by somebody from Venezuela who was 
similarly released under mass parole under the policies of this 
administration, under this President, and under this Secretary of 
Homeland Security. They don't want to talk about that 2-year-old.
  They don't want to talk about the adolescent girl who was raped by a 
Honduran who was released into the United States, again, under these 
policies. The simple fact of the matter is that is not what my 
colleagues want to talk about.
  They don't want to talk about the young Texas girl, a cheerleader, 
murdered in the bathtub. She was found dead by her mom when her mom was 
expecting to see her at a cheerleading event subsequent to that.
  They don't want to talk about that, and the President of the United 
States,

[[Page H838]]

most assuredly, will not talk about those Americans tomorrow night in 
this room.
  He won't. He will try to hide behind a Senate bill. He will try to 
hide behind a Senate bill that would have had no chance of passage. 
They knew it wouldn't pass. He will hide behind a bill that would have 
codified the mass releases that are endangering the American people, a 
Senate bill that would not have fixed the parole policies that resulted 
in the death of Laken Riley.
  These are all facts that we know to be true, but my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle want to hide behind the Senate bill because 
they know that their policies are indefensible.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is one step in order to honor the 
memory of Laken Riley, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

                              {time}  1245

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this place is no longer a serious place. My friends are 
turning the House of Representatives into a debate club. None of this 
is serious.
  The gentleman comes up and tries to claim there was regular order 
here, that the committee of jurisdiction actually did its job because 
half of the bill maybe was the subject of a hearing previously. Now my 
Republican friends are coming to the floor praising half regular order. 
I don't know. When I was in grade school, 50 percent was a failing 
grade. My friends are failing on regular order.
  If the gentleman was serious about this and my friends on the other 
side of the aisle wanted to get something passed, my colleagues would 
conduct themselves in a different manner and actually have regular 
order and invite Democrats to be able to offer ideas and try to work 
things out to see whether the majority could have a bill that actually 
had a chance of going anywhere in the Senate or being signed into law, 
but that is not what is happening.
  The gentleman comes here and starts reading the names of victims. I 
could sit here and read the names of the 21 victims in Uvalde who were 
murdered by a man with a gun. I could go right down the list and start 
naming all the children that were killed, all the mothers and fathers 
that were killed.
  The real challenge for this institution is to actually try to come 
together in a bipartisan way and solve problems and do something. I 
don't know how my friends could go home and claim that they are doing 
anything and be able to point to anything that ever makes it past the 
finish line.
  We are in a divided government. I wish we weren't. I wish Democrats 
were in control of the House, the Senate, and the White House, all at 
once. We would get a lot more done. When we were, we actually got some 
stuff done.
  However, that is not the reality, and so we have to deal with the 
reality. The reality is, if my colleagues want to get anything done, 
work has to be done in a bipartisan way, and my colleagues have to 
respect at least some semblance of regular order. That this bill had to 
be rushed to the floor with not a single hearing, with no markup, no 
amendments, no nothing, and the committee of jurisdiction never even 
had a chance to report it out, it is awful.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that 
would ensure every American has full access to essential reproductive 
healthcare, including abortion care.
  Since the wrongly decided Dobbs decision, every State across America 
has taken action on abortion in some way. Unfortunately, many 
Republican-led States, cheered on by Republican Members in this 
Chamber, have passed laws to either ban some or all abortion care.
  Republicans have made it crystal clear that banning abortion 
nationwide is their goal. Additionally, if trying to ban abortion care 
is not dangerous enough, extreme Republicans are now doubling down on 
their attacks on women's reproductive freedom by supporting a bill to 
ban IVF nationwide. That would criminalize reproductive healthcare.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Brown) to discuss our proposal.
  Ms. BROWN. Mr. Speaker, my guest for the State of the Union tomorrow 
will be Ms. Annette Watts of Warren, Ohio, the mother of Brittany 
Watts.
  Last year, Brittany Watts dealt with a common medical problem. She 
had a miscarriage. Instead of receiving care, she was charged with a 
crime.
  Mr. Speaker, this is because of the cynical, sinister, violent, 
vicious, blatant, barbaric, callous, and cruel agenda to deny women 
their rights--their right to IVF, to contraception, to miscarriage 
care, and, yes, the right to an abortion.
  One in three women live in States that have passed abortion bans and 
now face health issues far more dangerous than the procedure itself, 
like maternal sepsis. In addition, Black women, like Brittany, are on 
the front line. We are more likely to miscarry, more likely to need an 
abortion, more likely to die during pregnancy, and, yes, more likely to 
be targeted.
  It is time to restore rights rather than restrict them. We must pass 
the Women's Health Protection Act because everyone deserves access to 
reproductive care.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so we can bring up this important legislation.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the 
Record an article dated October 28, 2022, in Fortune magazine by the 
Associated Press entitled, ``Fentanyl and related drugs are killing 
more people than guns and cars combined. Many victims don't realize 
they're even taking it.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Indiana?
  There was no objection.

               [From the Associated Press, Oct. 28, 2022]

 Fentanyl and Related Drugs Are Killing More People Than Guns and Cars 
      Combined. Many Victims Don't Realize They're Even Taking It

                          (By Geoff Mulvihill)

       Lillianna Alfaro was a recent high school graduate raising 
     a toddler and considering joining the Army when she and a 
     friend bought what they thought was the anti-anxiety drug 
     Xanax in December 2020.
       The pills were fake and contained fentanyl, an opioid that 
     can be 50 times as powerful as the same amount of heroin. It 
     killed them both.
       ``Two years ago, I knew nothing about this,'' said Holly 
     Groelle, the mother of 19-year-old Alfaro, who lived in 
     Appleton, Wisconsin. ``I felt bad because it was something I 
     could not have warned her about, because I didn't know.''
       The drug that killed her daughter was rare a decade ago, 
     but fentanyl and other lab-produced synthetic opioids now are 
     driving an overdose crisis deadlier than any the U.S. has 
     ever seen. Last year, overdoses from all drugs claimed more 
     than 100,000 lives for the first time, and the deaths this 
     year have remained at nearly the same level--more than gun 
     and auto deaths combined.
       The federal government counted more accidental overdose 
     deaths in 2021 alone than it did in the 20-year period from 
     1979 through 1998. Overdoses in recent years have been many 
     times more frequent than they were during the black tar 
     heroin epidemic that led President Richard Nixon to launch 
     his War on Drugs, or during the cocaine crisis in the 1980s.
       As fentanyl gains attention, mistaken beliefs persist about 
     the drug, how it is trafficked and why so many people are 
     dying.
       Experts believe deaths surged not only because the drugs 
     are so powerful, but also because fentanyl is laced into so 
     many other illicit drugs, and not because of changes in how 
     many people are using. In the late 2010s--the most recent 
     period for which federal data is available--deaths were 
     skyrocketing even as the number of people using opioids was 
     dropping.
       Advocates warn that some of the alarms being sounded by 
     politicians and officials are wrong and potentially 
     dangerous. Among those ideas: that tightening control of the 
     U.S.-Mexico border would stop the flow of the drugs, though 
     experts say the key to reining in the crisis is reducing drug 
     demand; that fentanyl might turn up in kids' trick-or-treat 
     baskets this Halloween; and that merely touching the drug 
     briefly can be fatal--something that researchers found untrue 
     and that advocates worry can make first responders hesitate 
     about giving lifesaving treatment.
       All three ideas were brought up this month in an online 
     video billed as a pre-Halloween public service announcement 
     from a dozen Republican U.S. senators.
       A report this year from a bipartisan federal commission 
     found that fentanyl and

[[Page H839]]

     similar drugs are being made mostly in labs in Mexico from 
     chemicals shipped primarily from China.
       In New England, fentanyl has largely replaced the supply of 
     heroin. Across the country, it's being laced into drugs such 
     as cocaine and methamphetamine, sometimes with deadly 
     results. And in cases like Alfaro's, it's being mixed in 
     Mexico or the U.S. with other substances and pressed into 
     pills meant to look like other drugs.
       The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has warned that fentanyl 
     is being sold in multicolored pills and powders--sometimes 
     referred to as ``rainbow fentanyl''--marketed on social media 
     to teens and young adults.
       Jon DeLena, the agency's associate special agent in charge, 
     said at the National Crime Prevention Council summit on 
     fentanyl in Washington this month that there's ``no direct 
     information that Halloween is specifically being targeted or 
     young people are being targeted for Halloween,'' but that 
     hasn't kept that idea from spreading.
       Joel Best, an emeritus sociology professor at the 
     University of Delaware, said that idea falls in with a long 
     line of Halloween-related scares. He has examined cases since 
     1958 and has not found a single instance of a child dying 
     because of something foreign put into Halloween candy--and 
     few instances of that being done at all.
       ``If you give a dose of fentanyl to kids in elementary 
     school, you have an excellent chance of killing them,'' he 
     said. ``If you do addict them, what are you going to do, try 
     to take their lunch money? No one is trying to addict little 
     kids to fentanyl.''
       In midterm election campaigns, fentanyl is not getting as 
     much attention as issues such as inflation and abortion. But 
     Republicans running for offices including governor and U.S. 
     Senate in Arkansas, New Mexico and Pennsylvania have framed 
     the fentanyl crisis as a result of Democrats being lax about 
     securing the Mexican border or soft on crime as part of a 
     broader campaign assertion that Democrats foster lawlessness.
       And when Democrats highlight the overdose crisis in 
     campaigns this year, it has often been to tout their roles in 
     forging settlements to hold drugmakers and distributors 
     responsible.
       Relying heavily on catching fentanyl at the border would be 
     futile, experts say, because it's easy to move in small, 
     hard-to-detect quantities.
       ``I don't think that reducing the supply is going to be the 
     answer because it's so easy to mail,'' said Adam Wandt, an 
     assistant professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
       Still, some more efforts are planned on the U.S.-Mexico 
     border, including increasing funding to search more vehicles 
     crossing ports of entry. The bipartisan commission found 
     those crossings are where most fentanyl arrives in the 
     country.
       The commission is calling for many of the measures that 
     other advocates want to see, including better coordination of 
     the federal response, targeted enforcement, and measures to 
     prevent overdoses for those who use drugs.
       The federal government has been funding efforts along those 
     lines. It also publicizes big fentanyl seizures by law 
     enforcement, though it's believed that even the largest busts 
     make small dents in the national drug supply.
       The commission stopped short of calling for increased 
     penalties for selling fentanyl. Bryce Pardo, associate 
     director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center and a 
     commission staff member, said such a measure would not likely 
     deter the drug trade. But, he said, dealers who sell the 
     products most likely to cause death--such as mixing fentanyl 
     into cocaine or pressing it into fake Xanax--could be 
     targeted effectively.
       One California father who lost his 20-year-old daughter is 
     pushing for prosecutors to file murder charges against those 
     who supply fatal doses.
       Matt Capelouto's daughter Alexandra died from half a pill 
     she bought from a dealer she found on social media in 2019, 
     while home in Temecula, California, during a college break. 
     She was told the pill was oxycodone, Capelouto said, but it 
     contained fentanyl.
       The dealer was charged with distributing fentanyl resulting 
     in death, but he reached a plea deal on a lesser drug charge 
     and will face up to 20 years in prison.
       ``It's not that arresting and convicting and putting these 
     guys behind bars doesn't work,'' Capelouto said. ``The fact 
     is we don't do it enough to make a difference.''
       While some people killed by fentanyl have no idea they're 
     taking it, others, particularly those with opioid use 
     disorder, know it is or could be in the mix. But they may not 
     know how much is in their drugs.
       That was the case for Susan Ousterman's son Tyler Cordiero, 
     who died at 24 in 2020 from a mixture that included fentanyl 
     after years of using heroin and other opioids.
       For nearly two years, Ousterman avoided going by the gas 
     station near their home in Bensalem, Pennsylvania, where her 
     son fatally overdosed. But in August, she went to leave two 
     things there: naloxone, a drug used to reverse overdoses, and 
     a poster advertising a hotline for people using drugs to call 
     so the operator could call for help if they become 
     unresponsive.
       Ousterman is funneling her anger and sorrow into preventing 
     other overdoses.
       ``Fentanyl is everywhere,'' she said. ``You don't know 
     what's in an unregulated drug supply. You don't know what 
     you're taking. You're always taking the chance of dying every 
     time.''

  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, even in 2021, there were double the amount 
of overdose deaths than firearm deaths in the United States, and the 
dramatic increase in overdose deaths, particularly due to fentanyl, are 
a direct result of Joe Biden's broken border policies.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2021, U.S. citizens made up 86 percent of convicted 
fentanyl drug traffickers, 10 times greater than convictions of illegal 
immigrants for the same offense. Also, over 90 percent of fentanyl 
seizures occur at legal crossing points or interior vehicle 
checkpoints, not on illegal migration routes, so U.S. citizens who are 
subject to less scrutiny when crossing legally are the best smugglers.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an 
article from the Cato Institute entitled, ``Fentanyl is Smuggled for 
U.S. Citizens by U.S. Citizens, not Asylum Seekers.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

               [From the Cato Institute, Sept. 14, 2022]

  Fentanyl Is Smuggled for U.S. Citizens by U.S. Citizens, Not Asylum 
                                Seekers

                           (By David J. Bier)

       Fentanyl overdoses tragically caused tens of thousands of 
     preventable deaths last year. Many politicians who want to 
     end U.S. asylum law claim that immigrants crossing the border 
     illegally are responsible. An NPR-Ipsos poll last week found 
     that 39 percent of Americans and 60 percent of Republicans 
     believe, ``Most of the fentanyl entering the U.S. is smuggled 
     in by unauthorized migrants crossing the border illegally.'' 
     A more accurate summary is that fentanyl is overwhelmingly 
     smuggled by U.S. citizens almost entirely for U.S. citizen 
     consumers.
       Here are facts:
       Fentanyl smuggling is ultimately funded by U.S. consumers 
     who pay for illicit opioids: nearly 99 percent of whom are 
     U.S. citizens.
       In 2021, U.S. citizens were 86.3 percent of convicted 
     fentanyl drug traffickers--ten times greater than convictions 
     of illegal immigrants for the same offense.
       Over 90 percent of fentanyl seizures occur at legal 
     crossing points or interior vehicle checkpoints, not on 
     illegal migration routes, so U.S. citizens (who are subject 
     to less scrutiny) when crossing legally are the best 
     smugglers.
       The location of smuggling makes sense because hard drugs at 
     ports of entry are about 97 percent less likely to be stopped 
     than are people crossing illegally between them.
       Just 0.02 percent of the people arrested by Border Patrol 
     for crossing illegally possessed any fentanyl whatsoever.
       The government exacerbated the problem by banning most 
     legal cross border traffic in 2020 and 2021, accelerating a 
     switch to fentanyl (the easiest-to-conceal drug).
       During the travel restrictions, fentanyl seizures at ports 
     quadrupled from fiscal year 2019 to 2021. Fentanyl went from 
     a third of combined heroin and fentanyl seizures to over 90 
     percent.
       Annual deaths from fentanyl nearly doubled from 2019 to 
     2021 after the government banned most travel (and asylum).
       It is monstrous that tens of thousands of people are dying 
     unnecessarily every year from fentanyl. But banning asylum 
     and limiting travel backfired. Reducing deaths requires 
     figuring out the cause, not jumping to blame a group that is 
     not responsible. Instead of attacking immigrants, 
     policymakers should focus on effective solutions that help 
     people at risk of a fentanyl overdose.


             U.S. Citizen Consumers Fund Fentanyl Smuggling

       U.S. consumer payments for illicit opioids ultimately fund 
     fentanyl smuggling. Consumers pay retail dealers who pay 
     wholesalers, and the cash is then transferred back in bulk 
     cash form to Mexico. These funds are then used to pay 
     smugglers to bring drugs back into the United States again. 
     The best evidence indicates that about 99 percent of U.S. 
     consumers of fentanyl (or products containing fentanyl) are 
     U.S. citizens. Noncitizens appear to be about 80 percent less 
     likely to be fentanyl consumers than their share of the 
     population would predict. Fentanyl smuggling is almost 
     entirely conducted on behalf of U.S. citizen consumers. Of 
     course, consumers would prefer much safer and legal opioids 
     over illicit fentanyl, but the government has unfortunately 
     forced them into the black market with few safe options.


                 U.S. Citizens Are Fentanyl Traffickers

       Fentanyl is primarily trafficked by U.S. citizens. The U.S. 
     Sentencing Commission publishes data on all federal 
     convictions, which includes demographic information on 
     individuals convicted of fentanyl trafficking. Figure 1 shows 
     the citizenship status of fentanyl traffickers for 2018 to 
     2021. Every year, U.S. citizens receive the most convictions 
     by far. In 2021, U.S. citizens accounted for 86.3 percent of 
     fentanyl trafficking convictions compared to just 8.9 percent 
     for illegal immigrants.

[[Page H840]]

       Note that since trafficking involves movement from Mexico 
     to the United States, it is unclear how to measure the 
     likelihood of conviction for a noncitizen without U.S. lawful 
     immigration status or citizenship since the denominator would 
     include most Mexicans in Mexico as well as anyone who crosses 
     through Mexico. But regardless, the reality is that people 
     with U.S. citizenship or residence traffic the vast majority 
     of fentanyl, not illegal border crossers specifically or 
     illegal immigrants generally.
       Indeed, this appears to be the case even for the most high-
     profile cases. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American 
     Immigration Council analyzed every Customs and Border 
     Protection press release mentioning fentanyl over a 6-month 
     period and found just 3 percent involved illegal immigrants. 
     This means that the agency itself believes the most important 
     smugglers are U.S. citizens.


       U.S. Citizens Bring Fentanyl Through Legal Crossing Points

       That U.S. citizens account for most fentanyl trafficking 
     convictions is not surprising given the location of fentanyl 
     border seizures. Over 90 percent of fentanyl border seizures 
     occur at legal border crossings and interior vehicle 
     checkpoints (and 91 percent of drug seizures at checkpoints 
     are from U.S. citizens--only 4 percent by ``potentially 
     removable'' immigrants). In 2022, so far, Border Patrol 
     agents who were not at vehicle checkpoints accounted for just 
     9 percent of the fentanyl seizures near the border (Figure 
     2). Since it is easier for U.S. citizens to cross legally 
     than noncitizens, it makes sense for fentanyl producers to 
     hire U.S. citizen smugglers.
       The DEA reports that criminal organizations ``exploit major 
     highway routes for transportation, and the most common method 
     employed involves smuggling illicit drugs through U.S. [ports 
     of entry] in passenger vehicles with concealed compartments 
     or commingled with legitimate goods on tractor-trailers.'' 
     Several agencies including CBP, ICE, and DHS intelligence 
     told Congress in May 2022 the same thing: hard drugs come 
     through ports of entry.
       Some people posit that less fentanyl is interdicted between 
     ports of entry because it is more difficult to detect there. 
     But the opposite is true: fentanyl is smuggled through 
     official crossing points specifically because it is easier to 
     conceal it on a legal traveler or in legal goods than it 
     is to conceal a person crossing the border illegally. 
     Customs and Border Protection estimates that it caught 2 
     percent of cocaine at southwest land ports of entry in 
     2020 (the only drug it analyzed), while it estimated that 
     its interdiction effectiveness rate for illegal crossers 
     was about 83 percent in 2021 (Figure 3). This means that 
     drugs coming at a port of entry are about 97 percent less 
     likely to be interdicted than a person coming between 
     ports of entry, and this massive incentive to smuggle 
     through ports would remain even if Border Patrol was far 
     less effective at stopping people crossing illegally than 
     it now estimates that it is.


               Closing Ports Increased Fentanyl Smuggling

       During the early days of the pandemic, the Trump 
     administration drastically restricted legal travel to the 
     United States, banning nonessential travel through land ports 
     of entry from Mexico in particular in late-March 2020. 
     Because there were fewer opportunities to traffic drugs at 
     ports of entry, traffickers switched to trafficking more 
     fentanyl. Because fentanyl is at least 50 times more potent 
     per pound than heroin and other drugs, smugglers need fewer 
     trips to supply the same market. The seizure data demonstrate 
     the change in tactics. From October 2018 to February 2020, 
     about a third of fentanyl and heroin seizures at southwest 
     ports of entry were fentanyl with no clear upward trend. By 
     the time the travel restrictions were ended (at least for 
     vaccinated travelers) in January 2022, over 90 percent of 
     heroin-fentanyl seizures were fentanyl. Unfortunately, the 
     market shift has continued. The absolute amount of fentanyl 
     being seized quadrupled (Figure 4).
       The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reported that 
     in mid-2020, as a result of travel restrictions, ``Many 
     countries have reported drug shortages at the retail level, 
     with reports of heroin shortages in Europe, South-West Asia 
     and North America in particular'' and that ``heroin users may 
     switch to substances such as fentanyl.'' The DEA predicted in 
     2020 that ``additional restrictions or limits on travel 
     across the U.S.-Mexico border due to pandemic concerns will 
     likely impact heroin DTOs [drug trafficking organizations], 
     particularly those using couriers or personal vehicles to 
     smuggle heroin into the United States,'' leading to ``mixing 
     fentanyl into distributed heroin.''
       Unsurprisingly, the increased reliance on fentanyl has 
     increased fentanyl deaths. Indeed, it appears that the border 
     closures rapidly accelerated the transition from heroin to 
     fentanyl, leading to tens of thousands of additional deaths 
     per year (Figure 5). Note that 2021 data undercount the true 
     number of deaths because not all locations have reported. 
     Nonetheless, the annual number of fentanyl deaths have nearly 
     doubled between 2019 and 2021. Banning asylum under Title 42 
     of the U.S. code probably had no effect on these trends, but 
     it certainly did not help reduce fentanyl deaths, as some 
     have claimed.


              Asylum Seekers Don't Aid Fentanyl Smuggling

       Fentanyl smuggling is not a reason to end asylum. The 
     people arrested by Border Patrol are not smuggling fentanyl. 
     Just 279 of 1.8 million arrests by Border Patrol of illegal 
     border crossers resulted in a fentanyl seizure--too small of 
     a percentage (0.02 percent) to appear on a graph--and many of 
     these seizures occurred at vehicle checkpoints of legal 
     travelers in the interior of the United States.
       Nonetheless, some officials have asserted that asylum 
     seekers distract Border Patrol from drug interdiction 
     efforts. If asylum seekers were indirectly aiding drug 
     smuggling, however, we would expect the effect to show up in 
     the seizure trends by changing the locations, times, or 
     amounts of the seizures in some way. But drug seizure trends 
     simply do not deviate measurably with greater arrests of 
     asylum seekers. This is true on several different metrics: 
     across time, between sectors, along mile-distance from the 
     border, or the share of seizures at ports of entry versus 
     between them. If the administration legalized asylum at ports 
     of entry, even this hypothetical problem would disappear.


      Aggressive Drug Interdiction Exacerbates Fentanyl Smuggling

       The fentanyl problem is a direct consequence of drug 
     prohibition and interdiction. As my colleague Dr. Jeff Singer 
     has written:
       ``Fentanyl's appearance in the underground drug trade is an 
     excellent example of the `iron law of prohibition:' when 
     alcohol or drugs are prohibited they will tend to get 
     produced in more concentrated forms, because they take up 
     less space and weight in transporting and reap more money 
     when subdivided for sale.''
       Fentanyl is at least 50 times more powerful per pound than 
     heroin, which means you have to smuggle nearly 50 pounds of 
     heroin to supply the market that a single pound of fentanyl 
     could. This is a massive incentive to smuggle fentanyl, and 
     the more efforts are made to restrict the drug trade, the 
     more fentanyl will be the drug that is smuggled. The DEA has 
     even admitted, ``The low cost, high potency, and ease of 
     acquisition of fentanyl may encourage heroin users to switch 
     to the drug should future heroin supplies be disrupted.'' in 
     other words, heroin interdiction makes the fentanyl problem 
     worse.


                               Conclusion

       Border enforcement will not stop fentanyl smuggling. Border 
     Patrol's experience with marijuana smuggling may provide even 
     clearer evidence for this fact. Marijuana is the bulkiest and 
     easiest-to-detect drug, which is why it was largely 
     trafficked between ports of entry. Despite doubling the 
     Border Patrol and building a border fence in the 2000s in 
     part to combat the trade, the only thing that actually 
     reduced marijuana smuggling was U.S. states legalizing 
     marijuana. It is absurd to believe that interdiction will be 
     more effective against a drug that is orders of magnitude 
     more difficult to detect.
       The DEA plainly stated in 2020 that fentanyl ``will likely 
     continue to contribute to high numbers of drug overdose 
     deaths in the United States'' even with the ban on asylum and 
     travel restrictions. But ending asylum or banning travel has 
     been worse than useless. These policies are both directly and 
     indirectly counterproductive: first directly by incentivizing 
     more fentanyl smuggling and then indirectly by distracting 
     from the true causes of the crisis.
       My colleagues have been warning for many years that 
     doubling down on these failed prohibition policies will lead 
     to even worse outcomes, and unfortunately, time has 
     repeatedly proven them correct. The only appropriate response 
     to the opioid epidemic is treatment of addiction. But for 
     this to be possible, the government must adopt policies that 
     facilitate treatment and reduce the harms from addiction--
     most importantly deaths. To develop these policies, 
     policymakers need to ignore the calls to blame foreigners for 
     our problems.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will say to my friend from Indiana, my 
Republican friends now own this issue. The majority had a chance to do 
something, and my friends on the other side chose to not do anything. 
My colleagues chose to follow the orders of Donald Trump.
  Let me read to you the quote from Oklahoma's own senior Senator, 
James Lankford, and he said this on FOX News. He said: ``Are we, as 
Republicans, going to have press conferences and complain the border is 
bad and then intentionally leave it open?'' That is exactly what House 
Republicans are doing, complain, complain, complain, and then say, no, 
no, no, we don't actually want to do anything about the border. We just 
want to complain.
  Again, let me read that one more time. This is Senator Lankford, the 
second most conservative Member of the United States Senate, who said: 
``Are we, as Republicans, going to have press conferences and complain 
that the border is bad and then intentionally leave it open?'' That is 
exactly what House Republicans are doing, complain, complain, complain, 
and then they say, no, no, no, we don't actually want to do anything 
about the border. They just want to complain.

[[Page H841]]

  Senator Tillis, hardly a progressive, who had been working on this 
deal, called on House Republicans as well, and he said: ``Don't pretend 
that the policy,'' meaning the policy they negotiated, ``isn't strong. 
If you want to admit you're just afraid to tell President Trump the 
truth, that's fine.'' But for you to take a look at this framework and 
say it is a half measure, you are not paying attention, or you are not 
telling the truth.
  Mr. Speaker, again, this issue now is wholly owned by my Republican 
friends, and every opportunity to try to do something, from rejecting 
President Biden's request for additional funding for border security to 
telling the Senate that any border security bill is dead on arrival, 
that is now with you, and so my friends on the other side own this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded to direct their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I just have two words to say. H.R. 2, we 
passed that 8 months ago. That was the Secure the Border Act. The 
Democrats own that. Mr. Speaker, 211 Democrats voted against that 
legislation.
  I would also note that, since Joe Biden took office, we have had 
record numbers of crossings. There has been 7.5 million people who have 
crossed into the United States illegally and been paroled into the 
United States under Joe Biden's watch, and that has been going on for 3 
years under the Biden administration. Therefore, it is not Republicans 
that own this issue, but it is Democrats.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues want to, as I said before, hide behind the 
Senate legislation to try to suggest that House Republicans are not 
addressing the issue. Well, everybody who has been paying attention to 
the issue knows that we did, in fact, pass legislation just under a 
year ago that directly addresses the issues that are plaguing American 
citizens on a daily basis. This is a real issue.
  Again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to gloss 
over the real impact, not just on Texans, but as the folks that I met 
with in San Diego last week, what is happening to them and what is 
happening to their schools, what is happening to their jails, what is 
happening to their communities; and the people in Texas who have spent 
$12.5 billion to try to deal with border security--now having some 
success, by the way--doing our part to try to hold the line in Texas.
  We are seeing the flow of the cartels moving into Arizona and 
California, which is no great thing for the country, but it is at least 
trying to relieve the pressure on Texas.
  Also, the number of ranches, the number of people that I deal with 
all the time, but also the migrants. We just gloss over the little 
girls being sold into the sex trafficking trade. We gloss over the 
family in a stash house that my friend, who is a Federal judge, had to 
throw the book at somebody who was using this mom and her daughter to 
hold for a ransom of $25,000 against somebody who was here illegally in 
Baltimore. This is happening every day in our country.
  I-35 and I-10, the intersection in San Antonio, which I represent, is 
a main thoroughfare of this trafficking of human beings, and this is 
all happening on the watch of the executive.
  My colleagues want to try to pin the failure of open borders on a 
Congress for failing to give, what, more legislation and tools to a 
President who has the tools to do what is necessary to secure the 
border?
  President Biden could deal with the border right now--everybody knows 
that--by enforcing the law, by enforcing existing law, law that 
requires detention, law that requires that you detain people who come 
to the United States, who--because we are a people who want to give 
people some sort of chance if they are dealing with a claim for asylum 
because they fear political persecution or religious persecution--have 
to make that claim. However, most Americans believe that we detain, 
adjudicate the claim, determine if it is legitimate, and do not allow 
our government, our executive branch, our President, to make a mockery 
of the laws by using parole and asylum authority to flood the American 
people with millions of people. We know this to be true.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have literally no 
defense to the reality that millions have been released into the United 
States. Millions have been flooded into our communities, our schools, 
our hospitals.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle just kind of smugly 
smirk at what we have to deal with in Texas, what sheriffs have to deal 
with in Texas, what we have to deal with in our schools, in our 
communities, when we have to find the dead bodies of migrants on our 
ranches, because that is what happens.
  Is the President of the United States going to sit up there tomorrow 
night and talk about the dead migrants that we find on ranches in 
Texas? Is he going to have the nerve to do that, or talk about the 53 
migrants who died in a tractor-trailer in San Antonio last year in the 
Texas heat? Is he going to have the nerve to do that? No, because they 
are his policies, his choices to ignore the law.

  My Democratic colleagues want to somehow say that it is on the 
majority when we passed legislation to try to force the President to do 
what his job is and his duty under the Constitution. They have the 
temerity to try to say it is on the majority when it is, in fact, our 
Democratic colleagues who refuse to actually hold the executive branch 
accountable, as is required under the Constitution under separation of 
powers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say two things. First of all, yelling doesn't 
solve the problem; and, two, nobody on this side of the aisle is 
glossing over this issue.
  I have just spent the last 30 minutes telling my colleagues how 
ridiculous the legislation my Republican friends are bringing to the 
floor is and complaining about the fact that, every chance my 
colleagues get to fix the problem, my friends on the other side choose 
not to.
  By the way, it wasn't my words that I was quoting. It was Republican 
Members of the Senate, impeccably conservative Senator Lankford, 
Senator McConnell, Senator Tillis. It was my Republican colleagues.
  I get it. My friend is now making it clear. It is either his way, or 
the highway. Well, that is not a good attitude to have when you are in 
a divided government, but if that is what it is, that is what it is.
  I remind my Republican colleagues when they keep on bringing up their 
vaunted H.R. 2--by the way, I will say to the gentlewoman from Indiana, 
I think that is more than two words--last week, Senator Cruz from Texas 
basically had an amendment to the CR to bring up H.R. 2, their bill, 
their solution. It got 32 votes--32 votes. That is less than a third of 
the Senate.
  I don't know about my colleagues, but I think that is a pretty good 
indication that H.R. 2 isn't going anywhere. It is dead. Therefore, 
maybe we ought to come together and figure out what we can do together. 
For the life of me, I don't understand why Republicans are reluctant to 
do that.
  This is not a debate club. It is not supposed to be a debate club. 
This is supposed to be a place where we solve problems and pass 
legislation to help protect and defend this country. Instead, all we 
get treated to are press release bills, MAGA bills, yelling and 
screaming and whatever, but never, never, never a solution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 8\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, despite the very real domestic and global challenges 
facing our Nation, House Republicans have chosen to waste time on sham 
impeachments, silly censures, and extreme policies that will never 
become law, and the two bills that this rule would bring to the floor, 
they fall into that category.
  This is not serious legislating by any measure. Democrats have come 
to the

[[Page H842]]

table with real solutions on the border, real solutions on immigration, 
and instead what we get is garbage like this.
  I have said it before and I will say it again: Republicans own this 
issue. Their side owns this. They own the border. They own the fentanyl 
crisis. They own all of it because they repeatedly reject our attempts 
to work together. That is both on border security and nearly everything 
else that has been brought up in this Congress.
  Because of that, because Republicans absolutely refuse to work with 
House Democrats, the Democratic majority in the Senate or the 
Democratic-held White House, because House Republican leadership 
continues to bow down to the most fringe, MAGA Members of their 
ultraslim majority, this body no longer functions under regular order.
  In fact, we don't function. This is not functioning. The last bill to 
become law that came through the Rules Committee was 9 months ago.
  Let me repeat that: The last bill to become law that came through the 
Rules Committee was 9 months ago. House Republican leadership has lost 
six rule votes since January 2023, and every week there is a legitimate 
question of whether Republicans even have the votes to pass their own 
rules and bills.
  I have never seen such dysfunction. I have never seen such 
incompetence. House Democrats have rescued this failing House 
Republican majority at nearly every turn. Last year, House Democrats 
ensured that the U.S. didn't default on its debt. That was a big deal 
because if we didn't help, we would have defaulted on our debt.
  House Democrats have kept the government running, despite GOP 
leadership wasting time pursuing unrealistic draconian spending cuts. 
It has been our votes that have kept the lights on since September.
  We believe in governing. We believe that shutting the government down 
is a bad, terrible, awful idea. House Democrats have advocated time and 
time again for viable solutions that tackle the important issues the 
Americans most care about, but--and here is the sad thing--Republicans 
would rather play partisan politics like politicizing this horrific 
crime than do anything to actually keep our country safe.
  There is an opportunity here. The stars are aligned. Conservative 
Republicans are working with moderate and progressive Democrats and 
working with the President of the United States to try to come to some 
sort of a compromise that will make a difference, and the response by 
the House Republicans is forget about it, my way or the highway. No. 
Donald Trump says we need the issue. Don't ever come up with a 
solution. Don't solve problems. Let's just keep the issue. Let's keep 
the press releases coming. Let's continue to exploit tragedy after 
tragedy after tragedy. Enough.
  Again, this is not a debate club; this is the United States House of 
Representatives, and all of us, Democrats and Republicans, have an 
obligation to do our job, to make sure we keep the government running, 
to make sure we are solving problems.
  I plead with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join 
with us and with the conservative Republicans in the Senate. Let's do 
something, but instead we have got this. How pathetic.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, ``no'' 
on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us the opportunity to move legislation 
that could unleash growth and increase prosperity for Americans across 
the country in the Expanding Access to Capital Act. This bill empowers 
Americans with the tools they need to grow their small businesses and 
secure their financial futures.
  We need to focus on initiatives that strengthen our economy and 
combat inflation. However, time and time again, this administration's 
policies seem to hinder rather than facilitate business in America and 
it defies logic.
  In contrast, this legislation streamlines regulations, expands 
opportunities for economic growth, and enables more Americans to invest 
in their future.
  Turning to H.R. 7511, the Laken Riley Act, it aims to strengthen our 
immigration laws.
  In H.R. 7511, we mourn the death and honor the life and memory of 
Laken Riley and other victims of the Biden administration's open-border 
policies, and we denounce President Biden's open-border policies.
  We are not politicizing. This is a response to a tragedy in the hope 
that we would prevent a similar tragedy moving forward. No family 
should have to endure what Laken's family has experienced. We owe it to 
Laken's parents and parents nationwide to ensure something like this 
never happens again.
  This border crisis is real. It has devastating consequences. Laken's 
story is sadly not unique. As the Speaker has documented, there are 
over 100 stories across the country just like Laken's.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope the House can speak with one voice on this bill 
and together do what the American people have been asking us to do, 
which is secure the border and institute policies that will protect 
Americans and American families.
  I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and 
I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous 
question and ``yes'' on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

 An Amendment to H. Res. 1052 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

        At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 12) to protect a person's ability to determine 
     whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a 
     health care provider's ability to provide abortion services. 
     All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
     waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on 
     any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 12.
  Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________