[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.
____________________