[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 145 (Thursday, September 27, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H10944-H10947]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3567, SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT
EXPANSION ACT OF 2007
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 682 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 682
Resolved, That at any time after the 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. 3567) to amend the Small Business Investment
Act of 1958 to expand opportunities for investments in small
businesses, 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 except those arising
under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Small Business. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. All
points of order against provisions of the bill are waived.
Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the
bill shall be in order except those printed in the report of
the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each
such 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 amendments are
waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI.
At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment
the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
[[Page H10945]]
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration in the House of H.R. 3567
pursuant to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of
the previous question, the Chair may postpone further
consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for
debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume and I ask unanimous consent
that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and
extend their remarks on House Resolution 682.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
{time} 1030
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 682 provides for
consideration of H.R. 3567, the Small Business Investment Expansion Act
of 2007, under a structured rule. As the Clerk reported, the rule
provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small
Business. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of
the bill except for clause 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule makes in
order all three amendments that were submitted for consideration that
are printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying this resolution.
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, the Small Business Administration states that it ``helps
Americans start, build, and grow businesses.'' Lately, however, the
Small Business Administration's actions have spoken louder than their
words. And, unfortunately, SBA's actions have not spurred innovation
and development but stifled them.
Given the high cost of purchasing additional capital assets, small
businesses are dependent upon financing, which typically comes in the
form of venture capital or angel investments. Despite the SBA's intent,
its investment programs have fallen short and the needs of small
business have gone unmet. In fact, due to SBA's ineffective investment
programs, small businesses are now faced with more than $60 billion in
unmet capital needs.
This is a tragedy. Small businesses form the backbone of our economic
growth. In fact, they are responsible for creating three out of every
four jobs in the United States. Imagine how many businesses could grow
and how many jobs could be created if we could deliver even a fraction
of that unmet need.
Small businesses are vital to our economy, and we cannot afford for
our budding entrepreneurs to be denied the opportunity to succeed. By
making the SBA an efficient partner in business development, small
businesses will have better and more widespread access to venture
capital and angel investments that they need.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today, H.R. 3567, has strong
bipartisan support. It passed the Small Business Committee by a voice
vote.
Among other things, H.R. 3567 streamlines the Small Business
Investment Company program. Last year this public/private partnership
leveraged more than $21 billion to over 2,000 small businesses.
However, the current leverage limits are overly complex and the heavy
reliance on debt-based lending programs has hampered the investment in
veteran-, minority-, and women-owned businesses. H.R. 3567 will
simplify how leverage caps are calculated and revise the limitations on
aggregate investments to increase small business investment
opportunities. In addition, it provides incentives to target veteran-,
minority-, and women-owned businesses.
Second, the bill updates the New Markets Venture Capital program.
This program was established specifically to address the unmet equity
needs of low-income communities. However, this program has been
woefully underfunded, and as a result, investment in low-income
communities has suffered. H.R. 3567 expands the New Markets Venture
Capital program and provides additional incentives for small
manufacturing companies in low-income areas. This will be especially
important to areas like those in my district in Merced County.
Third, the bill establishes a new Office of Angel Investment to focus
on increasing equity investments in small businesses. Angel investors
are high net-worth individuals who invest in and support start-up
businesses in their early stages of growth and currently account for
the creation of more than 51,000 new businesses every year.
H.R. 3567 promotes this crucial source of financing for entrepreneurs
through the creation of an Angel Investment program within SBA's
investment division. This new program provides matching financing
leverage to eligible angel groups with 10 or more investors. The bill
also directs the SBA to create a Federal angel network, a searchable
directory of angel groups on the SBA Web site to better match up angel
investors with small businesses seeking financing.
The bill also addresses many deficiencies in the Surety Bond program
to assist small businesses in obtaining the backing they need to
compete for construction contracts.
Mr. Speaker, this bill reflects Democrats' commitment to providing
real solutions to remove the obstacles facing America's small business
owners, innovators, and entrepreneurs. I would like to thank the Small
Business Committee for their hard work and thoughtful work in bringing
this legislation to the floor today. In particular, I extend my thanks
to my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) and Chairwoman
Velazquez.
Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the importance of small business to our
economy, and we must act on this bipartisan bill without further delay.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
gentleman from California, my good friend (Mr. Cardoza), for yielding
me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, as a former small business owner, I recognize the need
for legislation to help update and streamline Small Business
Administration programs and leverage new investment strategies in order
to expand small business investment.
However, we must also make a commitment to small business that tax
relief measures that passed the House the last several years should not
be allowed to expire at the end of this year. With a month left before
Congress's target adjournment date and just 3 months left of 2007,
small businesses are depending on Congress to act quickly to renew tax
relief which has allowed them to create more jobs and grow, helping
America's economy grow at the same time. Tax relief and reduced
regulatory burdens can make all the difference whether a small business
is profitable at the end of the year or is forced to close its doors.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee adopted a structured rule
for consideration of H.R. 3567, the Small Business Investment Expansion
Act of 2007. While this rule makes all submitted amendments in order, I
believe the underlying bipartisan bill that is supported both by the
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Small Business should
have been considered under an open rule on the House floor today.
Yesterday the ranking member, Mr. Dreier, on Rules gave the Democrat
majority on Rules the opportunity to double the number of open rules
that this body has heard other than appropriation bills reported from
the committee this Congress. Unfortunately, Democrat members of the
Rules Committee denied bringing the underlying bipartisan bill to the
floor under an open rule process. Thus only two, Mr. Speaker, only two
of 433 Members of the House will be able to offer amendments on this
bill today. While this is disappointing, this, unfortunately, is not an
unusual practice of this Rules Committee, despite promises of openness
made to the American people just last year.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, House rules were adopted that require
the disclosure and allow Members to challenge earmarks in appropriation
bills;
[[Page H10946]]
however, under current House rules, earmarks and authorization bills
and tax bills do not have to be disclosed and are not allowed to be
challenged. This loophole needs to be closed, and I am going to give my
colleagues in this House another opportunity to send a strong message
to the American taxpayers that we are serious about earmark
transparency. Therefore, I will be asking Members to oppose the
previous question so that I may amend the rule to allow for immediate
consideration of House Resolution 479, the earmark accountability rule.
By defeating the previous question, we will be able to address earmark
enforceability in order to restore credibility to this House. By
considering and approving House Resolution 479, we will send a strong
message to American taxpayers that the House will no longer turn its
head the other way when it comes to transparency of earmarks.
As my colleague Lincoln Diaz-Balart observed yesterday, it has been a
good week for earmarks and a bad week for transparency. We have an
opportunity to change that, and I hope the Democrat majority will not
make this another missed opportunity to make good on their promises to
seek earmark transparency to American taxpayers.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the
vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman discusses the question of an
open rule. In fact, we adopted every amendment that was presented to
the Rules Committee and brought it to the floor today. There were three
amendments offered. All three amendments will be before the House
today.
And the question on a Small Business Committee bill that deals with
the wide diversity that small businesses can impact really allows,
under the House rules, under the germaneness rules, that almost any
measure, not related to this bill, but almost any measure could be
brought to the floor under an open rule. It's much more appropriate for
the Rules Committee to manage the debate and the time spent on this
House floor by asking all Members to submit their amendments that they
might want to put forward on this particular bill and debate them in an
orderly fashion on the floor. And that is why the committee adopted the
rule that it did, a structured rule, to manage the rule in an
appropriate rule way.
The second question is on the question of earmarks that the gentleman
raised. And I would just like to refer to page 24 of the report
submitted to the House that accompanies this bill, and title XIV is a
statement of no earmarks. I should read that to the House at this time.
It says: ``Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XXI, H.R. 3567 does not
contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited
tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI.''
The statement is very clear that there are no earmarks in this bill.
Mr. Speaker, the Democrats believe that small businesses are a
fundamental part of our Nation's economic growth and that government
has a responsibility to provide increased investment opportunities to
ensure their long-term successes. H.R. 3567 creates a renewed focus on
minority-owned small businesses and small businesses in low-income
areas, both of which have been traditionally faced with difficulty in
gaining access to equity investment. It also paves the way to better
serve thousands of small businesses and give a much-needed jolt to our
economy.
Mr. Speaker, we must continue to shepherd our small businesses to
give them every opportunity to succeed for today and for tomorrows yet
to come. This bill will move us in that direction, and small businesses
will be that much closer to making their dreams of prosperity a reality
with the passage of this bill.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is
as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 682 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point
of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the
Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for
enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House
of Representatives. The resolution shall be considered as
read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion
or demand for division of the question except: (1) one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2)
one motion to recommit.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
(f) Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. CARDOZA. 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. HASTINGS of Washington. 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 will be postponed.
[[Page H10947]]
____________________