[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 167 (Thursday, November 3, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H7279-H7288]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1310
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2930, ENTREPRENEUR ACCESS TO 
 CAPITAL ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2940, ACCESS TO 
                      CAPITAL FOR JOB CREATORS ACT

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 453 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 453

       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. 2930) to amend the securities laws to provide 
     for registration exemptions for certain crowdfunded 
     securities, 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. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment recommended by the Committee on 
     Financial Services now printed in the bill. The committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points

[[Page H7280]]

     of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in part A of 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. 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. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The 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.  Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2940) to 
     direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to eliminate 
     the prohibition against general solicitation as a requirement 
     for a certain exemption under Regulation D. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill shall 
     be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. 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: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Financial Services; (2) the 
     further amendment printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered 
     by Representative Miller of North Carolina or his designee, 
     which shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 
     debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis), a brand-new father who today presents himself on the floor as 
we work together, 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

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. 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 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. House Resolution 453 provides for a structured rule for 
the consideration of H.R. 2930 and H.R. 2940. This rule allows for all 
seven amendments submitted to the Rules Committee by Democrats and 
Republicans to be made in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying 
bills. H.R. 2930, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, was 
introduced on September 14, 2011, by my friend, the gentleman from 
North Carolina, Mr. Pat McHenry, and was reported by the Committee on 
Financial Services by a voice vote last week. The second bill, H.R. 
2940, the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act, was introduced by the 
Republican majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), 
and also passed the Committee on Financial Services by a voice vote 
last week.
  Both pieces of legislation have been through regular order. Members 
from both sides of the aisle have had opportunities to submit 
perfecting ideas, and those amendments have been carefully considered. 
Every amendment that was submitted to the Rules Committee was made in 
order and will be given full and fair consideration today. The chairman 
of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), has 
once again allowed the House to work its will through an inclusive 
legislative process.
  On December 10, 2009, I stood on the floor, and I argued then against 
the rule for consideration of the bill known as the Dodd-Frank 
financial reform bill. It should be noted that I authored two proposals 
amongst many Republican and Democratic amendments that were all shut 
out that day. Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi chose to advance the Dodd-Frank 
bill without any open process consideration. The result of that 
legislation has caused great concern in financial markets not just here 
in the United States, but it has caused financial concern around the 
world.
  Today the Republican House is changing that course in consideration 
of bills from the Financial Services Committee. Today we are looking at 
a targeted removal of outdated regulations simply to encourage market 
access for millions of small businesses and to encourage not only 
investment but also jobs in America.
  For those who are listening to this, you could consider this a jobs 
creation bill. So I would advance this cause down the street to the 
White House to encourage the President to know that this is yet another 
in a line of job-creating, job-saving, jobs-in-America bills that the 
U.S. House of Representatives is once again considering, and today, on 
a bipartisan basis, with every single amendment that was submitted to 
the Rules Committee through an open process on the floor of the House 
of Representatives, ready for us to move this bill and vote on that 
today.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. Speaker, our economy has a revenue problem. The administration 
continues to promote policies that slow economic growth. Republicans 
believe we must create an environment that encourages investment in 
small business, really the engine of our national job creators. This 
underlying bill will do just that. H.R. 2930 would remove restrictions 
on crowdfunding, allowing companies to pool small investors so that 
small businesses and entrepreneurs can raise capital equity. Outdated 
SEC regulations do not allow business owners in search of investments 
to solicit or to advertise. This legislation is needed and it's being 
presented on a bipartisan agreement basis.
  Yesterday, I met with community bankers from Texas--Scott Heitkamp, 
the president of Value Bank; John Jay, the president of Roscoe State 
Bank; and Milton McGee, with the Independent Bankers of Texas, among 
others, who described to me their inability to raise capital 
investment, not due to a lack of willing investors, but as a result of 
burdensome regulations which inhibit or do not allow this. They 
informed me that the SEC limit on individual investors restricts their 
ability to raise funds through community participation and local 
business creation. I was proud to tell them and I will tell them again 
today, I heard your story and we are here on the floor doing something 
about that that will be of immediate benefit and health to jobs and job 
creation in America today on the floor of the House of Representatives 
in a bipartisan agreement fashion.
  H.R. 2940 allows for general solicitation and advertising which would 
attract private investment. Small, privately held companies will no 
longer be forced to have an existing relationship with potential 
investors. However, the legislation requires the SEC to ensure that 
investors are accredited.
  As Congressman Jared Polis from Colorado, the lead today from the 
Rules Committee on behalf of the minority, indicated at the Rules 
Committee meeting yesterday that ``crowdsourcing'' investment through 
new advertising mediums, such as social media, would allow for access 
to new pools of available capital. These are exactly the kinds of ideas 
that are being brought today to the floor for the creation of 
investment dollars to help jobs in America and to make sure that we are 
prepared for our future.
  Our Nation is in crisis. We cannot wait. And with an unemployment 
population of over 14 million people, we cannot continue the failed 
policies of government spending which have brought us to this point. 
Investment capital for small business continues to sit on the sidelines 
because of the uncertainty created by burdensome regulations and 
outdated rules. The underlying bills will foster job creation by simply 
allowing the private sector to participate in this endeavor.

[[Page H7281]]

  The future success of our economy rests in the hands of private small 
business, not government. Unleashing their potential is the sole focus 
of this Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. The 
result is an economic environment that promotes growth and generates 
revenue as well as the creation of jobs in America.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this fair rule that allows 
consideration of all requested amendments and to vote for the 
underlying bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  I would like to express my appreciation to the leadership of the 
House for expediting these two important bills and bringing them before 
the House of Representatives. I rise in support of the underlying 
bills, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act and Access to Capital for 
Job Creators Act.
  Now, while I support the two bills before us, I do wish the rule was 
an open one. I will be voting against the rule. An open rule would 
allow the House to work its will in a true democratic process, allowing 
Members to come down to the floor and freely debate these bills. 
Unfortunately, in the Rules Committee, we were offered only a 
structured rule.
  Now, both of these bills accomplish something very important in terms 
of opening up capital markets and helping startups work. Let me discuss 
briefly how this whole accredited investor concept works.
  To be an accredited investor, you simply need to be worth $1 million 
or have income of $200,000 a year. Now, that's a very rarified strata 
of the American people.
  What does that mean when you're an accredited investor? It means that 
you can participate in a private equity offering that doesn't need to 
go through the full SEC process which is cumbersome and costs a lot of 
money. So, in effect, many venture capital opportunities, funding 
opportunities for startup companies, are reserved for those who are 
only worth above a million dollars. They say the easiest way to make a 
million dollars is to already be worth a million dollars. In fact, 
people worth more than a million dollars have heretofore had a monopoly 
on participating in these kinds of opportunities.
  Now, what can an average American family, let's say with a net worth 
of $50,000 or $100,000 do? Well, they can go to Las Vegas and they can 
bet it all on number 9. They can buy gold, which is being pushed by all 
these profit organizations, and I think we need a congressional 
investigation into that. Many of these organizations selling gold sell 
it for above market value by preying on unsuspecting people who are not 
accredited investors. They might be worth $50,000 or $100,000.
  What you find, by the way, is that this whole concept of tying an 
accredited investor to net worth has its flaws. Just because somebody 
has several million dollars doesn't mean they're a sophisticated 
investor. Meanwhile, there could be somebody who's worth $10,000 who is 
very sophisticated. It's unfortunate that we have the whole system tied 
to that.
  But what we see before us today are two important chinks in this 
armor. One is consistent with the current concept of accredited 
investor but at least opens it up beyond their personal networks, and 
the other one allows small investors to participate in a more 
meaningful way.
  First, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, crowdfunding. What 
this means is it provides a new way that companies, startup companies, 
can raise a limited amount of money, $1 million a year, or $2 million 
if they have audited financial statements. Now, that's a sizable amount 
for a company to get off the ground and get started. Many tech 
companies that you hear of today started with that much money or less. 
Historically, how did they raise that money? They would go to a venture 
capitalist. They would go to a wealthy individual. We call that person 
an angel investor. They'd get a check for $500,000. The investors had 
to be worth more than a million dollars. Your average American might be 
worth--might only have $5,000 to invest or $1,000 to invest, was unable 
to, under law, participate in that offering.
  What this does is it opens up an avenue that allows the individual 
investor to invest up to $10,000 in a startup company. Now, that's a 
risky investment. They could lose that $5,000. They could lose that 
$2,000. But you know what? They could go to Las Vegas and they could 
lose it a lot quicker with a lot less upside.
  So this gives every American the opportunity to invest in startup 
companies, if one of their friends is starting one, if there is some 
concept they are excited about, and reap the rewards as well. In 
addition to feeling part of something special, some of these 
investments, the vast minority, could return 50:1, 100:1 and could help 
those people acquire wealth, and that's very, very exciting.
  The Access to Capital for Job Creators Act also deals with a flaw in 
how private equity is raised. Currently, you have to know the right 
people to get into a private equity deal. In fact, a company that's 
offering private equity is not even allowed to, under SEC regulation, 
post a prospectus and information on their Web site in an open 
environment. What this bill does is it creates a safe harbor that 
allows them not to advertise it in the sense of loudly promoting it and 
trying to sell shares, but in a sense of simply providing it in a 
nonpassword-protected way on their Web site to allow people who aren't 
part of their personal network of elite friends to participate in that 
private equity offering as well.
  The average median household net worth in this country is about 
$100,000. And previously, all of these investment opportunities have 
been reserved for people worth over a million dollars. Now, if 
somebody's family, an American family watching this, or one of my 
constituents is worth $100,000 or $150,000 or $50,000, it may not make 
all the sense in the world to invest $5,000 or $10,000 in one startup, 
but a cap of $10,000 is a reasonable amount. It's their money and their 
right to do that if that's what they want to do. These bills are 
consistent with that. And, more importantly, they provide a new 
financing mechanism for startups in this country. That way, a startup 
that has broad appeal and a broad network can go to 1,000 people that 
have $1,000 each rather than one wealthy investor for $1 million. That 
was previously nearly impossible under current law.
  Mr. Speaker, I have here a Statement of Administration Policy, and 
I'm proud to say that this bill, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital 
Act, has strong support from the administration: ``This bill will make 
it easier for entrepreneurs to raise capital and create jobs, and the 
administration looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to 
craft legislation that facilitates capital formation.''

                              {time}  1330

  I would like to applaud the leadership of the President of the United 
States in strongly supporting these endeavors. As a former small 
business owner, I know how important it is to invest in a company's 
future and how critical resources are for growth. The more avenues that 
we can provide for financing startup companies or allowing a mom-and-
pop company to expand, the better it is for the growth of our economy.
  More importantly, these two pieces of legislation before us 
demonstrate that Democrats and Republicans can work together. We can 
put aside our partisan differences, we can fast track a commonsense 
piece of legislation and work towards solutions to spur economic 
growth.
  Now, to be clear, these two bills alone don't do enough to turn our 
economy around. These measures do little to address what the American 
people are asking us for, creating jobs in the short term and getting 
the economy moving. Will they have a positive impact in creating jobs 
and allowing for financing to flow to new startup operations? Yes, but 
they are not fundamentally game changers.
  These bills will allow average Americans an opportunity to invest in 
early-stage companies. Now, many of these opportunities won't work out. 
American investors will lose their money. Other American investors will 
make money. But, again, it is a very American concept that it is your 
money to invest as you choose, and the best opportunities shouldn't be 
reserved for millionaires. We should make them widely available to all 
Americans.
  Democrats on the Financial Services Committee have also been 
extremely

[[Page H7282]]

instrumental in improving these bills to protect business and 
investors. Democrats have added a critical provision requiring that 
issuers verify that an investor is actually eligible to purchase the 
offer in securities, and the change ensures there's a balance between 
the need to use restrictions on capital formation and protecting 
investors from fraud and making sure we don't get in the way of State 
regulation, as well.
  There is a fine line; and there are, as I mentioned, some areas where 
sham investments are being aggressively promoted that are certainly 
contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.
  Likewise, there are real opportunities that until this bill becomes 
law those who are worth under $1 million are ineligible from 
participating in, and as a companion those who might be worth more than 
$1 million but don't know the right people are unable to participate in 
private equity offerings. This bill remedies both of those restrictions 
and will help unleash capital flows to startup corporations. I'm proud 
to support both bills.
         Executive Office of the President, Office of Management 
           and Budget,
                                 Washington, DC, November 2, 2011.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


             H.R. 2930--Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act

           (Rep. McHenry, R-North Carolina, and 5 cosponsors)

       The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 2930. In 
     the President's September 8th Address to a Joint Session of 
     Congress on jobs and the economy, he called for cutting away 
     the red tape that prevents many rapidly growing startup 
     companies from raising needed capital, including through a 
     ``crowdfunding'' exemption from the requirement to register 
     public securities offerings with the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission. This proposal, which would enable greater 
     flexibility in soliciting relatively small equity 
     investments, grew out of the President's Startup America 
     initiative and has been endorsed by the President's Council 
     on Jobs and Competitiveness. H.R. 2930 is broadly consistent 
     with the President's proposal. This bill will make it easier 
     for entrepreneurs to raise capital and create jobs. The 
     Administration looks forward to continuing to work with the 
     Congress to craft legislation that facilitates capital 
     formation and job growth and provides appropriate investor 
     protections.

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Rules Committee.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. I want to begin by saying to the very distinguished vice 
chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, the gentleman from 
Dallas, that I appreciate his energy and effort on the Rules Committee. 
And I want to say that I think that he's very clearly made the case 
that we have, through this entire Congress, been focusing on the 
priority that the American people want us to focus on, and that is job 
creation and economic growth.
  Now, it's a very specious claim that has been made by many that 
somehow this institution has failed to address the issue of job 
creation and economic growth. And I appreciate the good words and 
thoughtful comments on capital formation made by the minority manager 
of this rule on the floor. My friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis), who has 
taken on, and throughout his life has been focused on, the idea of the 
entrepreneur, taking the entrepreneurial spirit and generating jobs, he 
understands what it takes. Capital formation is a critical part of 
that.
  The two measures that are going to be made in order under this rule 
go a long way in this 21st century recognizing that for us to grow the 
economy and create jobs, we're going to need to ensure that decreasing 
the regulatory burden that undermines the ability for small businesses 
to have access to capital as they pursue innovative ideas is something 
that needs to be addressed. And that's exactly what we're going to be 
doing.
  And I say it's a specious claim, Mr. Speaker, that many people have 
made that this institution is not taking action. For that reason, I 
hope very much that with this bipartisan effort that we have here, a 
bipartisan effort, that we will bring to an end those kinds of 
statements, mischaracterizing, grossly mischaracterizing the work of 
the United States House of Representatives.
  I believe that it's been inappropriate to make those claims for a 
long period of time. Why? Because we have made many, many, many efforts 
over the past several months to put into place policies that can help 
create jobs. Have they all worked at this point? No. They're all 
obviously prospective. But if you look at what we've done in the area 
of encouraging domestic energy production, that's a critically 
important part of getting the economy going, increasing job 
opportunities and reducing energy costs for our fellow Americans.
  If we look at the notion of trying to ensure that we open up new 
markets around the world for union and nonunion workers here in the 
United States of America, we have just, in a bipartisan way, with the 
support of both Democrats and Republicans, passed measures that will 
open up markets for us in Colombia, in Panama and in South Korea. I was 
privileged yesterday to be with the Ambassador from Korea as we marked 
a celebration, a bipartisan celebration of that effort.
  Look at the measure that was passed, again, with huge bipartisan 
support, dealing with the 3 percent withholding for those contracting 
with Federal, State, and local governments that we are bringing that to 
an end. That's something that the President of the United States has 
asked of us. We passed it out of the House of Representatives. And I 
have to admit, it's a measure that should easily pass the United States 
Senate, and I hope that Majority Leader Reid does bring that measure up 
in the Senate. Unfortunately, it hasn't happened so far, but I do think 
it's something that should pass the Democratic-controlled Senate. It 
has passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives with 
strong bipartisan support.
  Just this week we are continuing down that path towards putting into 
place a structure that will reduce the tax and regulatory burden to 
create jobs for our fellow Americans.
  I think it's also important to note, Mr. Speaker, that one of the 
things that we need to do since we have seen an 82 percent increase in 
non-defense discretionary spending for the 4 years leading up to this 
year, it's important that we decrease the size, scope and reach of 
government so that those small businessmen and -women who are seeking 
to create job opportunities are in a climate where that can take place. 
That's why I say that virtually everything that we have been doing to 
reverse that course that we were on, with that 82 percent increase in 
non-defense discretionary spending, everything that we've been trying 
to do to pare this down, the work that's going on right now of our 12 
colleagues who are part of the joint select committee charged with 
reducing by $1.2 trillion over the next decade the level of spending 
and we hope--we hope--beyond that $1.2 trillion level.
  All of these things, Mr. Speaker, are geared to getting our economy 
growing so that our fellow Americans will have more job opportunities. 
And so the message is a clear one. The process that we have is a very 
good one. I'm happy to say that if you look at the number of amendments 
that have been considered on the House floor in the first 9 months of 
this year, we've had 842 amendments considered on the House floor. I'm 
very pleased that we've been able to have a greater degree of openness 
and transparency. We've made every single amendment in order. There 
were many more Democratic amendments made in order than Republican 
amendments made in order on the two bills that are coming before us.
  We have seen, as I said, 842 amendments considered here on the floor 
in the first 9 months of this year. But, Mr. Speaker, in the entire 
111th Congress, that's 2 years, two sessions of Congress, there were a 
grand total of 787 amendments considered on the House floor. And so I'm 
very pleased that we have, in a bipartisan way, been able to open up 
the floor so that Members, regardless of their political party, 
Democrats and Republicans alike, have been able to have their ideas 
considered. And that is exactly what is going to happen under this 
special rule which we are considering at this moment.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let me say again, job creation and economic growth 
is what this is about. The American people are hurting. The people of 
my State

[[Page H7283]]

have an unemployment rate that is well in the double-digits. Part of 
the area I represent has a 15 percent-plus unemployment rate. We need 
to do everything that we can to get our economy moving.
  I would say to anyone out there, anyone out there who would try to 
make the claim that the United States Congress, specifically the House 
of Representatives, is not taking action to create jobs and get our 
economy growing is just plain wrong and that kind of 
mischaracterization has got to come to an end.
  I look forward, again, to bipartisan support for both this rule, 
which allows, again, every Democratic and Republican amendment that was 
submitted to us to be considered on the floor and also the very strong 
bipartisan support that I know that both of these measures will have as 
we proceed with debate.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague on the 
Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me, first of all, remind my colleagues that this is not an open 
process; this is not an open rule. If Members are watching the 
proceedings on the floor and want to offer an amendment, they are 
denied that opportunity. Not only that, but that's typical of the way 
this Congress has been run from the very beginning; promises of 
openness have not come to pass.
  Let me also say that the Republican majority in this House of 
Representatives has failed, and they have failed miserably, on the 
issue of jobs. We have talked about everything but jobs.
  This week we began our proceedings by debating a bill reaffirming the 
words ``In God We Trust'' as our national motto. Well, behind me, above 
the Speaker, in gold, is ``In God We Trust.'' On the back of a dollar 
bill it says, ``In God We Trust.'' I didn't know there was a problem. 
We get it. It didn't need reaffirming. It was there. But we spent a day 
debating that and not debating jobs. There are millions of people in 
this country without work, and we're debating those kinds of 
resolutions.
  We should bring the President's job bill to the floor. Why can't we 
bring the President's jobs bill to the floor? It has bipartisan 
support. All the others had bipartisan support until the President 
presented it. We were denied that opportunity.
  I am going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so we can bring up the issue of China's manipulation of its 
currency. The bills we are debating here today are fine, but they are 
peanuts compared to the jobs that are lost because of China's 
manipulation of its currency. But we have not, time and time and time 
again, been allowed to bring that to the floor. We can't bring the 
President's jobs bill to the floor.
  I have offered multiple times in the Rules Committee an amendment to 
end U.S. taxpayer subsidies for Big Oil; put that toward deficit 
reduction or put that toward investment in job creation. Time and time 
and time again, on party-line votes, we have been denied that right to 
bring that to the floor. So the Republicans have failed miserably on 
the issue of jobs.
  To come out here and say that jobs have been a priority is laughable, 
given the stuff that we have debated on this floor. What we should be 
debating is the President's jobs bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  I would say to my friend who just yielded an additional 30 seconds, 
will the gentleman yield to me?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Texas.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.
  At this time, I would like to extend to the gentleman from California 
5 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. I would like to engage in a discussion, if I might, with 
my friend from Worcester who has just, in response to my quest to 
recognize that the measure that is before us today that is a job-
creating measure will, in fact, Mr. Speaker, enjoy strong bipartisan 
support--and everyone acknowledges. I mean, all one needs to listen to 
is the minority floor manager of this measure that this issue is a 
jobs-creation item.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to my friend from Worcester.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman.
  Why won't you allow the President's jobs bill to come to the floor? 
Why have you denied us the opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on 
the issue of China's manipulation of its currency? Why, on these issues 
that will create millions of jobs, can we not get a vote?
  Mr. DREIER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for 
his very thoughtful contribution. Let me respond to his points.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the President's jobs bill that we are 
considering today right here on the House floor. The President stood 
just over the gentleman's shoulder and addressed a joint session of 
Congress on the issue of job creation and economic growth and how he 
wanted his jobs bill brought forward. Do you know what he said to us? 
He said we needed to pass the Colombia, Panama, and Korean free trade 
agreements. And guess what? With bipartisan votes, we have embraced and 
supported that provision of the President's jobs bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman.
  I would urge the gentleman to come with me and talk to some of these 
unemployed manufacturing workers and say to them that the Colombia free 
trade agreement somehow----
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, now I will reclaim my time to say that, 
since my friend has brought up the issue of Colombia, and we've 
disagreed on this for a long period of time, there are 40 million 
consumers in Colombia. And right now there are people who are union 
workers at Caterpillar and at John Deere and at Whirlpool and other 
manufacturing companies in the United States who are going to have 
access to those consumers because of the agreement that we have put 
into place.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to my friend.
  Mr. McGOVERN. The gentleman said the same thing about NAFTA too.
  Mr. DREIER. I would like to reclaim my time, if I might, to say to my 
friend that if one looks at the jobs that have been created in the 
manufacturing sector of our economy--and I'm very sympathetic to those 
workers that my friend has just spoken about in his district; but, Mr. 
Speaker, I think it's important for us to note that the United States 
of America today is still the number one manufacturing country on the 
face of the Earth.
  It is true that there are other countries that are growing in the 
manufacturing sector, and it is true that we have lost manufacturing 
jobs in the United States of America, in large part due to the tax and 
regulatory burden, things like repatriation and other items which play 
a role in discouraging economic investment here in the United States, 
but having said that, we can't forget that the United States still is 
the number one manufacturer.
  So with 96 percent of the world's consumers outside of our border, 
the idea of saying that we're ignoring the President's request--the 
President stood here. And I will admit, it's with our encouragement, I 
encouraged him just days after he was elected, Mr. Speaker, with our 
encouragement he has supported the idea of opening up these markets in 
Colombia and Panama and South Korea. And I will say, Mr. Speaker, that 
as we seek to do that, we have embraced these measures and we're doing 
them in a bipartisan way.
  And so as my friend got up and said we're talking about ``In God We 
Trust'' rather than talking about jobs, we do have the ability, believe 
it or not, to walk and chew gum at the same time. But we all know that 
the top priority is making sure that we get our economy back on track. 
And, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we're doing. That's exactly what 
we have done for

[[Page H7284]]

the past several months. Because in the last Congress, with the passage 
of things like the stimulus bill that they told us that if we passed 
the stimulus bill the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent, we 
all know where it is. As I said, in part of my district it's in excess 
of 15 percent. That has been a failed policy.
  We have been putting into place policies, again, working in a 
bipartisan way, unlike the way the stimulus bill was put into place at 
the beginning of last year. We have now, I believe, established 
policies that can play a big role to ensuring that those workers whose 
hands my friend shook in his district are able to have the kind of 
potential job opportunity that is necessary.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I'm happy, of course, to further yield to my friend, even 
though he would never yield to me.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Two final thoughts: One, this is not the President's 
jobs bill. And there are millions of people who are unemployed in this 
country. I repeat my claim that the Republicans have a lousy record on 
jobs.
  Mr. DREIER. If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, to say that this 
is not the President's jobs bill--I will admit, it was at our 
encouragement--but these are things that he said when he addressed us 
right here in a joint session of Congress. So it is for that reason 
that we have been able to come together in a bipartisan way to address 
these very important issues.
  And so I'm happy, Mr. Speaker, to recognize and support 
bipartisanship when it comes to getting America working again.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. Very briefly, I yield myself 1 minute to respond before I 
yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  To be clear, these bills have the potential to create jobs, but there 
will also be many investors that lose money as a result of these bills. 
Again, it's their money to lose. These bills are consistent with that. 
And obviously these bills, in addition to causing job growth in 
companies, will also cause misery to some people. But it is their money 
to lose, and it's probably better that they bet it on some startup than 
they invest it in gold or they take it to Vegas. So at least there's an 
opportunity to create jobs. Even if the company doesn't go anywhere, 
that's a job for a year. And it limits the loss to 10 percent of their 
income. So if somebody makes $80,000, they can only lose $8,000 a year 
under this. Hopefully that won't put them out of house and home. And it 
gives them the same opportunities to invest in startup companies that 
millionaires have had for years. It's a very egalitarian measure.
  It is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Ways 
and Means Committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Levin).
  (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LEVIN. I'm glad we're having this debate. This bill isn't 
basically a jobs bill, and it puts a Halloween mask on it to say that's 
what it is, basically.
  The gentleman from California talks about manufacturing. The 
President struggled to save the automobile sector, the domestic sector 
of this country, over the opposition of many Republicans, including who 
is now apparently the leading nominee for the Republican Presidential 
nomination.

                              {time}  1350

  If we really want to talk about jobs, what we should do is to turn 
down the previous question on this bill so we can bring up the currency 
bill. This will put Republicans to the test on a real jobs bill.
  The estimate is, by Fred Bergsten, that passage of legislation like 
this changing the Chinese undervaluation of their currency would create 
a million jobs.
  No one in authority has said this bill will create any jobs. And Paul 
Krugman, his estimate is 1.5 million jobs.
  And you talk about bipartisanship? This currency bill is truly 
bipartisan. So it will also put to the test whether you believe in 
bipartisanship when it comes to a real jobs bill. This bill, H.R. 639, 
now has 230 sponsors, a majority in the House of Representatives, and 
it has 62 Republicans, and it passed the Senate, a similar, though not 
identical bill, with strong Republican support.
  So this previous question, everyone who votes, will put you to the 
test. Do you believe in a real jobs bill? It won't destroy the bill on 
the floor. It will add to it.
  And also, do you really want to not only have bipartisan action, but 
on a currency bill that will really mean hundreds of thousands of jobs 
to the American people? Not 6 months from now, as this bill before us 
might bring about a few, but right in the immediate future, tens of 
thousands.
  So I strongly urge that we vote ``no'' on the previous question and 
free the majority of the Members of this House to act on a bill that 
they now sponsor. Free us. Take off the bonds.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), chairman of the Insurance, Housing and 
Community Opportunity Subcommittee.
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. It is time to act. We 
cannot afford to wait any longer on regulatory agencies to tweak the 
rules and regulations, commission further studies, or form another 
committee.
  Since 2008, employment at regulatory agencies is up 13 percent while 
private-sector jobs have decreased by more than 5 percent. And despite 
the increased manpower, regulators have been unable to meet deadlines, 
issue timely rules, or reform unnecessary and outdated regulations.
  The cost of starting a business, measured as a percentage of per 
capita income, has more than doubled since 2007. Even more troubling, 
according to a new report by the World Bank, the U.S. has fallen to 
number 13 in terms of ease of starting a business.
  To reverse these troublesome trends, it is critical that Congress 
focus its efforts on eliminating barriers to capital formation. Instead 
of inhibiting innovation, we must put in place sound policies that 
harness America's entrepreneurial spirit and spur economic growth.
  I am pleased that we are able to join with our friends from the other 
side of the aisle on today's legislation, which will amend outdated 
provisions that currently inhibit the ability of small businesses to 
connect with investors. These bipartisan provisions will allow small 
businesses to raise essential job-creating capital and reclaim their 
rightful place as the most vibrant job creators in America.
  I want to recognize the gentleman from California and the gentleman 
from North Carolina for their hard work on these bills, and I encourage 
all my colleagues to support this rule on the underlying legislation.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, again I express appreciation to both majority 
and minority leaders for expedited action in trying to get to the 
President's desk these two important measures.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz).
  Mr. CRITZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think the ranking member of Ways and Means really hit what the 
point of this is; that this is not against the two bills that are the 
underlying bills for this rule, but this is about jobs.
  And you know, in this body, many times we think about, what does a 
poll say? What does this poll say?
  Well, regardless of what the polls say, when I go home everyone in my 
congressional district is talking about jobs, is talking about the 
economy.
  I was thrilled to hear that these two bills flew through the process, 
introduced in September and now we're debating them on the floor. What 
I can tell you, though, is that the Chinese currency bill, H.R. 639, 
the currency manipulation bill, was proposed in February of this year.
  I've heard comments like ``bipartisan,'' and ``let the House work its 
will.'' Well, this bill enjoyed tremendous bipartisan support last 
year, 348-79, with 99 Republicans voting for it. Reintroduced this 
year. It's interesting; in this body many times we do things and then 
complain about things that go to the Senate, and it doesn't happen in 
the Senate.
  Well, here's a bill, actually a stronger version of this bill, that 
passed the Senate 63-35. It's the House, it's the

[[Page H7285]]

House leadership, it's the Republican leadership in this House that is 
denying the Chinese manipulation bill coming to the floor. Let the 
House work its will. This is about jobs.
  As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) mentioned, estimates are 1 
million to 1.5 million jobs, 1.5 percent of GDP. It's something that we 
should all be passionate about. This is about standing up for the 
American people. This is about standing up for the American 
manufacturers.
  The Speaker said this could be dangerous. Well, let me tell you 
something. Ask folks in the tire industry, ask folks in the steel 
tubing industry who've watched Chinese unfair trade practices put them 
in jeopardy and put their people out of work. This is something about, 
you have to stand up, you have to take a stand.
  Sixty-two Republicans are cosponsors of this bill. I urge defeat of 
the previous question. It does not defeat the underlying bill so that 
we can talk about jobs and this bill, H.R. 639.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We're here talking about capital formation. We're here talking about 
entrepreneurial spirit, catching up with ideas to go to make job 
creation, and then for the jobs to be here in America.
  That's what this bill is about today. It is about a bipartisan 
attempt, Republicans and Democrats working together, through regular 
order, to the Rules Committee, all seven amendments--Republicans and 
Democrats--that were submitted coming to the floor today, and us 
working these few hours, a chance for, I think, not only Members of 
Congress to effectively present their ideas and do the will of the 
people, but for us, perhaps more importantly, to work together to find 
common ground on important issues that will aid and help Americans have 
sounder financial footing. That's what this bill's about today.
  I know there are other bills that people want to debate and want to 
bring to the floor. I felt that way for 4 years when the other side 
was, in fact, in control. But job creation through capital investment, 
through the formation, is what this bill's about.
  I'm very proud of what we're doing here on the floor today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).
  Ms. SUTTON. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question and get back to the work of really creating jobs in 
our country.
  Every week I go home to Ohio and I meet with countless men and women 
who are ready to get back to work. They're ready to prove something 
that we already know--that the American worker is the most productive 
and innovative in the world.
  Right now there are thousands, an estimate of a million Americans, 
who could be put back to work if we held China accountable for 
manipulating its currency. By rigging the system and giving the 
manufacturers, their manufacturers, an unfair advantage, China has 
placed a roadblock in our road to economic recovery.
  The Senate has already taken action. They passed a bill to hold China 
accountable and give our workers a level playing field on which to 
compete. If House Republican leaders are really serious about 
significant actions to create jobs, they can bring this bill to the 
floor right now, right here today. We can do something big to help 
people in Ohio and across the country.
  I urge defeat of the previous question so that we can bring the 
currency manipulation bill to the floor and bring jobs back to the 
United States.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Regarding what is on the floor today, it is important that we 
recognize it is a continuing trend for job growth, job creation on not 
just a net basis, but on a positive basis without the loss of jobs. The 
Federal Government creates an average of 4,000 final rules and 
regulations each year, and that is what inhibits job growth. That's 
what the prior two Congresses have been about--massive rules and 
regulations, not the empowerment of the free enterprise system.
  We need to remember that what we are here for is to work in the best 
interest of making a future brighter and better for those who are with 
us today and those who are behind us for their future. And that's why 
job creation, investment, and capital formation is important.
  I reserve the balance of my time
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. I rise in strong support of the motion so that we can 
amend the rule and provide for the consideration of a bill that will 
create over 1 million jobs, the Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act. The 
floor schedule of the House has long been determined by the majority 
leader. Everybody knows that.
  I'd hope that the majority leader would therefore represent what is 
the majority of our Members, 230 Members who cosponsored the bill--
that's not so bad--and schedule it for a vote.
  We quite simply can't afford to wait any longer. China's currency 
manipulation has a devastating impact on manufacturing and other 
industries across this country. This results in Chinese exports being 
up to 30 percent cheaper in America. Now you know where the problem is. 
Now you know what's hurting American industries. Conversely, our 
exports are being more expensive in China. Estimates vary, but 
economists believe that this manipulation reduces unemployment by no 
more than 1 million to 1\1/2\ million.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass of New Hampshire). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. We are out of excuses, Mr. Speaker. We really are.
  We've got support from both sides of the aisle on this. There are 
over 14 million people unemployed in America. The bill costs nothing to 
the taxpayer. This is amazing that we're putting something before the 
House that won't cost us any money. No taxes. The Senate has already 
passed the bill--bipartisan, huge numbers, margin. They're 235 
bipartisan cosponsors in our institution here. This legislation passed 
with over 350 votes. No excuses, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman.
  I'd just like to build on a point that the gentleman from New Jersey 
was making. We need investments into our economy. This is an 
opportunity for us to get private investments into our economy. And the 
gentleman from California was talking about 96 percent of the globe is 
outside of the United States.
  What's happening now with the currency manipulation is China is 
artificially making their products cheaper so that they can ship them 
here to the United States, and because of that, our products trying to 
go into China are more expensive.
  Now, we had dozens and dozens and dozens of Republicans vote for this 
last year at the end of the session. The Senate has passed this. This 
is a simple measure where we can send a signal to the country and to 
the world that if we play fairly with China and China plays fairly with 
us, we all can benefit. And that will drive investment back into the 
United States and manufacturing.
  We had two cases at the International Trade Commission on tires and 
steel tubing in which China was cheating. The Americans, we put tariffs 
on these products, we saw job creation come, over $2 billion worth, in 
the steel tubing industry of investments that have been made since that 
decision. We've seen tire manufacturers expand in places in northwest 
Ohio.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. So if we level off the playing field with these 
guys, we can compete. With transportation costs going up, we can 
compete. We have the productivity. We have the workforce. We just need 
a level playing field.
  So I ask, Mr. Speaker, that this Congress, this House of 
Representatives, brings this bill up and let's make some progress with 
China and set the tone and reclaim the mantle for manufacturing here in 
the United States.

[[Page H7286]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentleman from 
Colorado that I have no additional speakers other than myself, and I 
reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman. I believe we are on our last 
speaker.
  I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. 
Michaud).
  Mr. MICHAUD. I thank my friend for yielding.
  More than 3 weeks ago, the Senate passed bipartisan legislation to 
address China currency manipulation. Since then, the Census Bureau 
reported that the U.S. trade deficit with China set a new record at 
$28.96 billion in August. But House leadership still refuses to bring 
to the floor bipartisan legislation that would withdraw on the yuan's 
illegal undervaluation. The consequences of China's unchecked currency 
manipulation will only get worse.
  China is literally robbing us of our factories, of our manufacturing 
jobs; and we aren't doing a thing about it. Addressing China's currency 
manipulation would create at least 1 million jobs without costing the 
American taxpayers a penny. That is why Congress has to bring the 
Currency Reform for Fair Trade Act to the floor immediately. And that's 
what we're trying to do here today.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and 
``yes'' on getting tough on China.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Congress has an opportunity today to unleash investors in American 
business for the benefit of capital formation in America for American 
companies and jobs.
  Additionally, we have an opportunity because we have worked so well 
together. There is joint agreement to ensure the safety and soundness 
of financial institutions in the United States with this legislation. 
Reforms to company-investor relations are long overdue, long overdue 
that would reform the industry to make them better, stronger--to add 
jobs, may I add.
  Congress should be doing everything we can do to help economic growth 
and development, to jump-start the free enterprise system and put 
Americans back to work. That happens through capital formation. Growing 
our economy and slowing Federal spending will be the best way to get 
this government back and the economy back on track and getting out of 
the rising debt and deficit that is facing this great Nation.
  The underlying bills provide necessary steps today for doing just 
that.
  So I applaud my colleagues, Mr. McHenry and Mr. McCarthy, for 
introducing the bills that we're discussing here today. In particular, 
I'm proud of my committee, the committee I've served on for 14 years, 
the Rules Committee, under the leadership of the gentleman from 
California, Dave Dreier, for making sure that this bill--the power for 
investment, capital formation, jobs--also included ideas, ideas from 
both sides of the aisle, which equally, if submitted, were given not 
only consideration but the green light to come to the floor today to 
make sure that what we did, we did together; to make sure that we speak 
with a voice that's very powerful about the need for us to ensure that 
America's greatest days lie in our future through the free enterprise 
system.
  I'm proud of what we have done here today.

                              {time}  1410

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. I will inform the gentleman from Texas that one additional 
speaker has emerged.
  I would be honored to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman from Texas 
that we ought to be doing everything we can for American workers. The 
time has come for this House to vote on the Currency Reform for Fair 
Trade Act.
  My friends across the aisle need to stop standing in the way of 
American jobs. It's time to act. We've been discussing this issue with 
the Government of China for more than 8 years, and this Republican 
majority has done not one blessed thing. American manufacturers should 
not be forced to compete against a 28 percent discount on imports from 
China due to China's predatory currency practices. This legislation 
will give meaningful relief to U.S. companies and workers who are hurt 
by China's currency manipulation.
  This is a bipartisan measure. Amazing. The same bill passed the House 
last year with an overwhelming vote, including with a strong majority 
of Republicans. Now, of course, that was last year. The majority of the 
House this year, 230 Members, have cosponsored this bill, including 62 
Republicans. A similar bill passed the Senate by a large bipartisan 
vote. American workers expect every one of us on both sides of the 
aisle to fight against China's predatory trade practices and to fight 
for American workers.
  The question you have to ask yourself, Mr. Speaker, is: How long are 
we going to have to wait for a jobs bill to come from the Republican 
side? It seems like it may never happen until after the election of 
2012.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The bills before us do something for people of all economic classes 
in the country--they help working families and the poor; they're good 
for the middle class; and they're good for millionaires. Let me talk 
about each group and how it helps.
  First, millionaires. It gives millionaires more ways to lose their 
money. Isn't that exciting?
  Previously, again, you not only had to be a millionaire, but you had 
to be a millionaire with the right connections to be networked to a 
company that's doing a private equity offering. Otherwise, you weren't 
allowed to find out about it. This will put all millionaires on an 
equal footing and will give them the opportunity to examine 
prospectuses on company sites, have them presented to them under the 
Access to Capital for Job Creators Act, allow them to squander their 
money on startups, and to, of course, occasionally reap a reward as 
they hope to do.
  Again, this money that's invested will then create jobs. It will help 
fund the companies and get them off the ground, giving millionaires 
many more ways to lose their money through investing in risky startup 
companies.
  What does this do for the middle class? Again, it gives the middle 
class more ways to risk their money and lose their money as well.
  Previously, with a middle class family, the average net worth in this 
country was about $100,000. They were unable to invest in a startup 
company. They were not accredited investors. They couldn't lose their 
money that way. They could go to Las Vegas. They could bet it all on 
number six. They could lose it all there. They could respond to a full-
page ad in a paper and buy gold with all their money. That doesn't 
create any jobs. But no. They couldn't invest it in their neighbor's 
startup company. This bill remedies that.
  It limits their losses, and allows them to invest 10 percent of their 
income. If they make $80,000 a year, they can invest $8,000 in a risky 
startup company. Again, nine out of 10 of these are going to go out of 
business--they'll lose their money--and maybe one out of 10 will make a 
lot of money; but this allows middle class families the same 
opportunities that millionaires have always had to lose their money.
  What does it do for working families and the American poor? Access to 
capital.
  What if you have an idea? What if you don't have any net worth, but 
you have a great idea? You need to raise $100,000, $300,000--the 
proverbial ``better mousetrap.'' Do you know what? You might not know 
any fancy venture capitalists, and you might not know a lot of people 
with money. But do you know what this bill allows you to do? It allows 
you to put that idea up on the Internet and raise money from small 
investors across the country--legally. There is no legal way to do that 
until this bill passes. There is no legal way for somebody without 
access to capital to raise capital in small tranches without incurring 
SEC oversight and having to hire lots of lawyers.
  This effectively allows working American families to raise money for 
their ideas by crowdsourcing, or raising money over the Internet, from 
that newly enfranchised middle class that now has the ability to lose 
their money

[[Page H7287]]

in new ways and from the millionaires, who have always been able to 
lose their money but only if they knew the right people. So these bills 
allow new avenues for growth capital for startup companies.
  Again, to be clear, most of these companies aren't going to work out. 
That's the nature of capitalism. Most of them are going to go out of 
business. They might employ three people for a year, and 2 years down 
the road, they'll be a footnote. But do you know what? Some of them are 
going to work out. We could see the next Google, the next Yahoo!, the 
next Microsoft. Many of these companies started as garage companies, 
funded by proverbial friends and family. The next great American 
success story can be funded by crowdsourcing. It can have thousands of 
investors from middle class families across the country, earning 
millions of dollars on their investments and limiting their losses to 
10 percent of their incomes.
  I am proud to support these two bills and am appreciative of the 
majority and minority staffs for expediting their passage and improving 
them in committee and through the amendment process. It's time we get 
back to work for the American people.
  I again call on the Speaker and my Republican colleagues to put aside 
partisanship and give us more bills like these and more bills that can 
contribute to robust job growth and to do something for all American 
families regardless of their economic worth.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the previous question; and I ask unanimous 
consent to insert the text of the aforementioned amendment to the rule 
in the Record, along with 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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Again, I would like to point out that I will be opposing 
the previous question on the underlying issue. I don't necessarily 
agree with what some of my colleagues have said with regard to China, 
and I voted consistently with that in the last Congress and have in 
this Congress; but I do believe that the House should be able to work 
its will on this important matter to the American people and with 
regard to international relations.
  There are bigger fish to fry than giving millionaires more ways to 
lose their money, than giving middle class families more ways to lose 
money and giving working families access to more capital; but these are 
important steps forward for capitalism, for capital growth and capital 
formation, and to create the next generation of great American 
companies that will lift us from this recession and carry forward the 
torch of American progress across the world.
  I am honored to support both underlying bills and hope that they move 
to immediate passage in the Senate as well.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, it's a rare day when members of the Rules 
Committee from opposing parties have a chance to do so well with each 
other on the floor.
  Once again, I'd like to congratulate the gentleman from Colorado on 
being a new father. We celebrated this with the pictures at the Rules 
Committee just yesterday.
  I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:


                      An amendment to H. Res. 453

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, 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. 
     639) to amend title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify 
     that countervailing duties may be imposed to address 
     subsidies relating to a fundamentally undervalued currency of 
     any foreign country. 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 Ways and Means. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. 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 
     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. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 3 of this 
     resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        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 Republican 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 Republican 
     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 Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In 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 Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. 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. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 453, if 
ordered, and the motion to instruct on H.R. 2112.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 184, not voting 8, as follows:

[[Page H7288]]

                             [Roll No. 821]

                               YEAS--241

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--184

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bilirakis
     Giffords
     Hirono
     Larson (CT)
     Murphy (CT)
     Ruppersberger

                              {time}  1444

  Ms. McCOLLUM, Mr. HOYER, and Ms. PINGREE of Maine changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. RICHARDSON, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, and Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________