[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]]



                          ____________________