[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 27, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2008-H2014]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4498, HELPING ANGELS LEAD OUR
STARTUPS ACT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 701 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 701
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4498) to
clarify the definition of general solicitation under Federal
securities law. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; (2)
the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member
designated in the report, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as
read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a
division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with
or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which 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. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and
the underlying legislation, which will benefit small innovative
companies and startups by ensuring that they have access to the
necessary capital to succeed, grow, and create jobs in their companies.
But I also stand up today to make sure that we are here for a
marketplace that is fair and equitable to all Americans, regardless of
whether they work for a small company or a large company, whether they
are a big-time investor or whether they are a person who is looking at
the marketplace, perhaps, with ideas and opportunities.
Last night, the Rules Committee met and reported a structured rule
for H.R. 4498, the Helping Angels Lead Our Startups, or the HALOS, Act.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair
and ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.
I also want to point out that the Rules Committee asked all of our
Members of this body to submit their ideas and amendments. As a result,
this resolution makes in order all of the amendments that were
submitted. That is important because what this Rules Committee is
attempting to accomplish is to ask all of the Members for their
feedback about how to make bills better; and in this case, when
something was germane, it was made in order.
The Securities and Exchange Commission has a three-pronged statutory
mission in overseeing U.S. capital markets: to protect investors; to
maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and to facilitate
capital formation.
Unfortunately, the SEC historically has ignored its mandate to
facilitate capital formation in the absence of congressionally mandated
rulemakings.
{time} 1230
The SEC's inability to fulfill its statutory mandate is ultimately to
the detriment of entrepreneurs, smaller companies, and startup
ventures, such as Teladoc, the Nation's first and largest telehealth
platform, which had it not received startup investment, may not have
existed at all.
To remedy the SEC's inaction on capital formation, my colleagues and
I passed the bipartisan Jumpstart Our Business Startups, or JOBS Act,
which was signed into law on April 5, 2012. The recognition that we had
problems in the marketplace for smaller companies and smaller groups of
people to bring their ideas to the marketplace was a huge impediment
based upon the SEC, and that is why this JOBS Act was created.
Although startups and small businesses are at the forefront of
technological innovation and job creation, they often still face
significant and unnecessary obstacles in obtaining funding in the
capital markets. The JOBS Act lifted the burden of certain securities
regulations to help small companies obtain access to these important
markets, but we are back at the table again.
Unfortunately, when the SEC promulgated rules to implement the JOBS
Act, it classified events held by angel investors as general
solicitations, and thus, they were subject to accredited investor
mandates, yet another example of the Federal Government's creating
unnecessary red tape, stifling innovation, and quite honestly, making
it hard for smaller, single entrepreneurs to participate in a worldwide
marketplace.
This new classification is burdensome and it jeopardizes educational
and economic development for events like demo days. Demo days are held
in marketplaces all across our country. It is an opportunity for not
just investors, but for general communities to come, primarily in the
tech field, and learn about the newest startups as they are occurring.
When startups interact with angel investors and venture capitalists, it
means that best ideas can then be brought forward to create more jobs,
investment, and can move forward so an idea that perhaps was on
somebody's blackboard goes directly to the marketplace.
Demo days have been an important part of the entrepreneurial
financing
[[Page H2009]]
process for decades--nothing new--often with lead sponsorships by
Federal, State, and local governments, which are bringing these best
ideas into play for the marketplace to see not only about the idea, but
for it to become a reality in an economic development format.
To be clear, demo days have existed long before the passage of the
JOBS Act and have created collaborative and engaging educational
environments that have brought together startups, leading-edge thought
leaders, young programmers, people who are looking to network, and, I
think, an overall more diverse network of individuals that is looking
to exchange ideas. These are the kind of educational incubators that
our country needs more of, not less of.
We are here today because the SEC developed rules that would change
demo days greatly--and other activities like this--to the detriment of
the marketplace, yes, but, more importantly, to the detriment of small
business and entrepreneurs.
To address the SEC's burdensome rule, Congressman Steve Chabot from
Ohio, the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, introduced H.R.
4498, the Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act. This legislation
defines an ``angel investor group'' and clarifies that the Securities
Act's general solicitation limitations do not apply to a presentation,
communication, or event conducted on behalf of an issuer at an event
that is sponsored by certain organizations; where any advertising for
the event does not reference any specific offering of securities by the
issuer; or where no specific information regarding an offering of
securities by the issuer is communicated to or distributed by or on
behalf of the issuer.
What does this mean?
This means that these demo days that are regularly held across the
country are opportunities whereby a presenter of an idea or a person
who represents that idea might bring forward those ideas, many times to
hear about a collaborative basis, where there may be someone who
recognizes he could add on to that idea or be a part of that idea or
work with that idea or be a programmer for that idea or to host or to
sponsor something that would enable that idea to get further down the
road.
What the SEC did is throw a wet blanket across it and said: You can't
do these.
We are trying to segment that out and say: For the purpose of a demo
day, when it does not relate to a specific offer or ask for funding, it
still can take place.
This is not a narrow interpretation. The intent is to understand that
the purpose of a demo day should be to get ideas further down the road
so they can gain not only the opportunity for investment, but so they
can make their ideas even better.
H.R. 4498 provides essential protections for States, municipalities,
trade associations, and other venues that facilitate such meetings
between investors and fund managers.
It is important for Congress to act. Just because we are not aware of
how marketplaces work does not mean we should wait for the Federal
Government to regulate them and then find out, whoops, they made a
mistake. Members of Congress need to be active to understand that the
SEC should live up to its statutes, that it should live up to its
mission statement, and that it should not stifle innovation, but,
rather, allow for the creative opportunity and development of these
issues and ideas to come forth in order to better not only employment
and ideas, but, more specifically, employment within the United States
so consumers will then have better options over time. To ensure that
angel investors play an active role in startups is why we are here
today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions), my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for the
customary 30 minutes.
I rise in opposition to this structured rule, which provides for the
consideration of H.R. 4498, the so-called Helping Angels Lead Our
Startups Act, otherwise known as the HALOS Act. I also oppose the
underlying legislation unless through the amendment process we can
improve it.
The gentleman from Texas said something that I agree with: ``It is
important for Congress to act.''
I think where we differ is: Act on what? What should Congress be
acting on right now? Should we be talking about this? Or should we be
talking about other things, quite frankly, that are much more important
to this country and to the American people?
Four days from now, Puerto Rico faces a $422 million debt payment.
Given the items listed for consideration in the House this week, it
appears as though the Republican majority has no plans to act on
legislation to address the debt crisis in Puerto Rico.
I understand that my Republican friends in the majority are having a
difficult time in coming to an agreement within their Conference on how
to move forward, but I urge my colleagues to continue working with
Leader Pelosi and Ranking Member Grijalva toward a bipartisan solution
that allows Puerto Rico to restructure its debt. This is a big deal.
The Senate is waiting for us to act, the people of Puerto Rico are
waiting for us to act, and our constituents are waiting for us to act.
Rather than acting on that which is urgent, we are doing this.
Another thing we might want to think about acting on and is an area
in which the House Republican leadership has also failed to act is that
of the public health emergency created by the Zika virus. This is a big
deal. It is the public health. The well-being of our citizens is a big
deal, or at least it should be, but you would never know it if you are
following the proceedings on the House floor. My colleague from New
York, Congresswoman Lowey, has an emergency supplemental bill to help
to fund what is necessary to protect our people from this virus, but we
are told that is on the back burner.
What about doing something in response to the terrible tragedy that
unfolded in Flint, Michigan, where that community was poisoned by the
water that came out of their faucets? Why aren't we addressing that
emergency?
By the way, Flint is not unique, unfortunately. There are other
places across this country where the levels of lead in the drinking
water are unacceptably high, are dangerously high. We need to make sure
that our infrastructure in this country is up to the point at which
people don't have to worry about drinking the water that comes out of
their faucets. We should be addressing that issue, but for some reason
we don't have the time.
There are lots of young people here who are visiting the Capitol this
week. Why aren't we doing something about student financial aid so that
people can afford to go to college, creating a situation by which young
people who go to college are debt free when they get out of college,
lowering the interest rates on college loans or eliminating the
interest rates on college loans, thus making college more affordable?
That is a huge priority. That is important, but we don't have time to
talk about that here in the people's House.
This Congress also continues to shirk its constitutional duty to vote
on an authorization for the war against ISIS. In the past week, the
Pentagon announced that the United States will send 250 more troops to
Syria and 200 more to Iraq. In Iraq alone, the official number of U.S.
troops is now over 4,000, but this House still can't seem to find time
to debate and vote on an AUMF.
I have great reservations about the President's policy with regard to
these wars. I think we ought to debate those wars and I think we ought
to go on record as voting to authorize those wars. Instead, we don't
want to talk about it. We are putting the lives of young American men
and women in harm's way. We are sending them halfway across the world
to be engaged in an effort, in my opinion, in which there is not a
clearly defined mission.
We are not living up to our constitutional responsibility, which is
we ought to debate and deliberate and vote on these wars. That is our
constitutional responsibility, and we are not doing it. We don't have
the time, or maybe we are just too cowardly to be able to tackle some
of these important issues.
The American people are tired of endless wars, and it is our
responsibility to
[[Page H2010]]
debate these escalations that continue to invest more American tax
dollars, add more firepower, and put more U.S. troops closer to the
front lines; but, again, this leadership isn't focused on these very
serious situations that call for immediate action.
Just so you know, we are not paying for most of these wars. While my
friends like to talk about our debt, I would point out that most of
these wars are unpaid for. They just go on the credit card. We don't
even have the guts to have a vote on whether to pay for these wars.
Instead, we are doing this today.
Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, House Republicans missed the legally
mandated deadline for Congress to enact a budget, and it appears as
though we are not going to see a budget resolution on the floor this
week or anytime soon. On the most pressing issues facing our country
today, my friends in the Republican majority have failed--and they have
failed miserably--to do their job, plain and simple.
So what is the House debating today? What is so urgent to debate
today that all of these other things can be put to the side?
We are debating legislation, the so-called HALOS Act, that will undo
an important investor protection that Democrats fought to include in
the 2012 JOBS Act.
I supported the JOBS Act, which expanded opportunities for small
business capital formation. Since the JOBS Act became law in 2012,
companies have raised roughly $71 billion of capital by using the new
general solicitation and advertising exemption.
{time} 1245
But it is important to balance our desire for capital formation with
their need to protect investors, particularly unsophisticated retail
investors.
The JOBS Act removed the ban on solicitation in advertising to the
general public for private offerings, provided that companies verify
the purchasers of their offerings are accredited investors.
The legislation before us today repeals that verification requirement
when companies solicit their offers at a wide range of sales events.
The private securities marketplace is already under limited SEC
oversight, and many of us share the concern that this legislation could
unnecessarily expose investors to risks that they are unprepared to
absorb.
Now, my friend, Ranking Member Maxine Waters, will offer an amendment
later today to restore some of the investor protections that would be
eliminated by the underlying legislation. I urge my colleagues to
support that amendment.
Mr. Speaker, the House is set to adjourn on Friday for yet another
weeklong break and we have yet to consider any of the priority
legislation that I had just spoken about earlier. We need to focus on
important issues. We need to focus on urgent issues rather than taking
away important investor protections.
So I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and the underlying
legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern)
bringing up these issues. We try and talk about these issues up at the
Rules Committee. There is always a wide-ranging list of not only issues
and ideas, but I certainly know that, as we talk about these, we are
all after action on the floor.
I don't know the exact answer, but I believe, as it relates to the
problem with the Zika virus, that we are dealing with some $600
million. I note that Mrs. Lowey, the ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee, has come on the floor and I am subject to
being corrected by her.
But it is my understanding that right now, in an account that would
be allowed to be exchanged, some $600 million is left over in that fund
that is unspent from the Ebola crisis and that negotiations between our
appropriators, the CDC, and other Federal agencies have said: We do
recognize from the House perspective that this is a very, very serious
issue. We acknowledge that.
I have acknowledged that up at the Rules Committee. The gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has several times, in the spirit that I
appreciated and that was very complimentary to a proper answer, brought
this issue up, that this is what he is looking at, that it is an issue
in our country.
The responses that I continue to, I believe, receive back is that our
appropriators, on a very professional basis, have allowed use of the
funds to be used for that issue.
So I would like to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts that I do
understand his concerns and, really, Mr. McGovern, I appreciate it.
I appreciate you, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Polis, and Judge Hastings
bringing these issues up. But we try and go and clarify what I think
are proper or sustainable answers to your ideas. The ideas about other
pieces of legislation we will get to.
Where there are emergencies, I do agree with the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I do not think an AUMF, which is a
discussion about military use of force, is necessarily in line right
now, but I know that Republicans are preparing that. I know that the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) could bring his effort
forward and will at the appropriate time for his ideas. They will all
fit.
Today, however, what we are here for is something that has been in
line for some period of time that is a major issue. The gentleman very
appropriately said the last time we brought forth legislation that it
created $71 billion worth of entrepreneurial funding, funding that
helps our country's research and development, new ideas in medicine,
new ideas in communication, new ideas that employ people, money to the
marketplace.
That is why we are here today. We think this is just as powerful.
After we passed the JOBS Act, the SEC got most of it right, not all of
it right, and we are trying to politely--this is the way we do things
in a democracy. We try and work with government agencies to say: You
got some of it right, but congressional intent needs to be done a
little bit further.
Will it bring $71 billion to the marketplace? I don't know. Will it
mean that a brighter future exists for innovation, job creation, and
investment that keeps America's leading edge as opposed to ideas going
somewhere else around the world? Yes.
I would argue that Speaker Paul Ryan is aware of all the issues that
need to be debated. Today we feel like jobs and job creation and
perhaps an opportunity to stimulate, whether it is $71 million or $71
billion worth of new stimulating activity for new ideas, is important.
That is why we are here today. That is why people took a number, got
in line, and developed their activity. Steve Chabot measured twice,
brought his legislation here, and understands what it is about.
I would also say, as Mr. McGovern I believe politely alluded to, this
is a good idea because it does not say we will only form these
opportunities in Republican districts, but we will form them in
districts all over the country.
It is a good, bipartisan piece of legislation that helps smaller,
less sophisticated people. It helps the marketplace. I think it is
important.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to say to the gentleman from Texas that I appreciate the fact
that he appreciates the concerns that I have raised, but I would
appreciate him even more if we could bring some of the legislation to
the floor that would actually solve some of the problems and deal with
some of the challenges that I outlined.
I had brought up earlier the issue of the Zika virus, which has
infected 891 individuals in the U.S. States and territories, including
at least 81 pregnant women. This is a big, big deal.
Some of us are not interested in robbing from Peter to pay Paul to
deal with this. We don't want to be dipping into the Ebola fund, which
is still an issue, to deal with the Zika crisis. I mean, we have
multiple challenges that we have to deal with.
Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, just a polite dialogue. Do you believe in
any
[[Page H2011]]
way, because we have not moved a bill, that the Federal Government is
stopping and waiting and doing nothing on this issue?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
We are doing something, but I think what people who are dealing with
this crisis would feel better about is if there was a certainty that
the resources were going to be there.
Those who are fighting the Ebola crisis are concerned that, if you
are going to take money from Ebola to put into Zika, that maybe you are
not going to replenish the monies to deal with Ebola. We have some
serious public health issues that we are trying to deal with.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question.
If I do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up a bill that
would provide desperately needed funding to combat the Zika virus.
The administration requested this funding more than 2 months ago, and
it is reckless to delay our response to this public health crisis any
longer. Yes, we are doing things to respond to it. We can be doing a
lot more. I think the American people want us to do all that we
possibly can to protect the public health of the citizens of this
country.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment 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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, with great respect for our distinguished
chair with whom we work very collegiately, I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question in order to provide the funding needed
to mount a robust response to a pressing public health emergency.
More than 2 months ago the administration requested funding critical
to respond to the Zika virus, a public health emergency tied to
microcephaly and other neurological disorders in infants.
It is unconscionable that, when nearly 1,000 people in the U.S. and
territories have contracted Zika, the majority continues to drag their
feet on meeting our most basic responsibility.
The majority's inaction has forced the administration to redirect
funding needed to meet other basic responsibilities, shortchanging
still-needed investments to protect against Ebola and to help States
and cities improve domestic public health.
The majority's claim that the administration has provided
insufficient detail on the request doesn't make any sense. Every cent
has been accounted for. Yet, we continue to wait to sit on our hands.
Further, the majority holds this emergency to a new standard,
requiring offsetting cuts before providing needed resources. This
literally holds emergency funding hostage to unrelated political
fights.
This simply cannot go on. Are we waiting for the height of summer
when mosquito control will be infinitely more difficult? Are we waiting
for this emergency to spiral out of control?
I urge my colleagues to stand with me and defeat the previous
question so we can meet our responsibility to protect against Zika.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am delighted that the gentlewoman from New York, who is a regular
visitor to the Rules Committee and who really, I believe, adequately
and fairly not only represents the needs of this Nation, but really
argues many times on behalf of things that are common sense--I want to
thank her for being here today.
Mr. Speaker, this is not an argument at all about the Zika virus,
about Ebola. The Ebola circumstance to the United States in the United
States actually occurred first in Dallas, Texas, within the
congressional district that I am so lucky to represent. It did
constitute not only an immediate threat and danger to not only that
hospital in Dallas, Texas, but, really, all across our country, and it
evoked a scare. It did.
Well, we have that same type of circumstance today. That is why, in
retouching base with our Appropriations Committee, I now can speak what
I believe is from them directly as opposed to what I thought I heard,
and that is that the appropriators have said that immediate funding
needs for Zika should be provided from unobligated funds that are
already available, which would then be backfilled in 17 appropriations
bills as needed, which means that there still is money that the
approval, the authorization, has been given.
Instead of us delaying through our process here, we have said that we
concur this is of immediate nature. Here is a bucket of money. Here is
a bucket of money.
As an example, there are some $400 million that is available that was
a part of the Ebola funding that is unobligated and is intended to be
spent in future years. There is money available to meet the immediate
need.
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, in working with Speaker Ryan, has made sure
that the money is available, can be used for this need, and Republicans
agree it is the right thing to do.
{time} 1300
I do appreciate Mrs. Lowey coming down. I do appreciate the
gentlemen, Judge Hastings and Mr. McGovern, seeking these questions.
Mr. Speaker, we are trying to make sure that this body understands
the money is available. It is there to be used properly, as with any
other taxpayer money, but that it may be used for this purpose. Quite
honestly, I am very proud of what we are doing to match up the needs of
this Nation and its great people.
Mrs. LOWEY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman's eloquent
remarks. However, I want to emphasize again that this is an emergency.
People are severely, severely, being impacted because of the Zika
virus. This is an emergency. We should be doing it immediately.
I understand that it may be tempting to transfer money from another
account. However, to have to find offsets here when people are
suffering, dying, perhaps having deformed infants doesn't make any
sense now.
I would just say in closing, I thank the gentleman for his concern,
and I do hope that we can pass this emergency supplemental as soon as
possible because so much of where the money is going to go is long-
range planning. Vaccines. We have to make sure that we prevent
additional cases of Zika, and developing a vaccine can't be done in a
month or 2 months. It takes time.
So if, in fact, the administration has requested $1.9 billion, and we
have responded, and the administration has responded to the very
sincere questions provided to us by the chair, Chairman Rogers of the
committee, we think it has been documented very carefully.
I would ask again my colleagues to consider that this is an
emergency, $1.9 billion is what has been documented in detail. It is
all in writing. I thank the gentleman for listening.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, you are witnessing here a colloquy on the
floor between groups of people who can work together. Mrs. Lowey, Mr.
McGovern, Judge Hastings, Ms. Slaughter, and Mr. Polis represent not
just the Democratic Party, but millions of people across the country.
I want to forthrightly try again to answer, if I can. I do hear them,
Chairman Rogers hears them. There is at least $500 million--granted,
only one-third of what has been requested--that we believe is available
for it to be transferred right now.
I talked to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I said:
Mr. McGovern, do you believe in any way that something is being held
up?
He said: No, sir. We are working. This government is working
feverishly.
As a parent, I understand this. While I have an advantage of having a
disabled child as a son, that does not mean that I would want anyone
else to have a disabled child. I get this.
I have satisfied myself, and I believe my party has, through our
great young Speaker, Paul Ryan, satisfied ourselves that pending the
time when we
[[Page H2012]]
can get at a supplemental--perhaps later in the year there will be
wildfires, perhaps later in the year there would be a hurricane. We
have the money available. No one disputes that the money right now is
usable, it is fungible. The question is: When will it be backfilled?
I have properly said here today that Chairman Hal Rogers has the
ear--and we have his ear--of every Member of this body who does
understand when we need to get more money and when the new cycle
begins, and we will be starting this just in the next few weeks, that
that would be available as an option for Chairman Rogers to take Mrs.
Lowey's request, to take her detailed analysis of if it is a billion-
some, would be able to implant that into a priority for this
Conference, for this Congress, for these bodies to understand, and that
we would hope to work forth then with the United States Senate, with
the President of the United States, and work it well together.
Mr. Speaker, what you have seen here is a prime example of people
talking, people getting closer to an answer. I am trying to respond
back that I believe our Speaker, Paul Ryan, I believe Hal Rogers, I
believe myself as an instrument of a messaging back and forth properly
are responding: The money is available. Please go get your work done.
As we get further down the line, we will be further down the process.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do here is sound the alarm bells
that we need to do something much more robust than is currently being
done. I include in the Record the letter that we have referred to from
the administration signed by Shaun Donovan, Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, and Susan Rice, the National Security Adviser.
This is a letter to Speaker Paul Ryan.
The White House,
Washington, DC, April 26, 2016.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Ryan: As you are aware, on February 22, the
Administration transmitted to Congress its formal request for
$1.9 billion in emergency supplemental funding to address the
public health threat posed by the Zika virus. Sixty-four days
have passed since this initial request; yet still Congress
has not acted.
Since the time the Administration transmitted its request,
the public health threat posed by the Zika virus has
increased. After careful review of existing evidence,
scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) concluded that the Zika virus is a cause of
microcephaly and other severe fetal brain defects. The Zika
virus has spread in Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the U.S.
Virgin Islands and abroad. As of April 20, there were 891
confirmed Zika cases in the continental United States and
U.S. territories, including 81 pregnant women with confirmed
cases of Zika. Based on similar experiences with other
diseases transmitted by the Aedes aegypti mosquito--believed
to be the primary carrier of the Zika virus--scientists at
the CDC expect there could be local transmission within the
continental U.S. in the summer months. Updated estimate range
maps show that these mosquitoes have been found in cities as
far north as San Francisco, Kansas City and New York City.
In the absence of action from Congress to address the Zika
virus, the Administration has taken concrete and aggressive
steps to help keep America safe from this growing public
health threat. The Administration is working closely with
State and local governments to prepare for outbreaks in the
continental United States and to respond to the current
outbreak in Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories. We are
expanding mosquito control surveillance and laboratory
capacity; developing improved diagnostics as well as
vaccines; supporting affected expectant mothers, and
supporting other Zika response efforts in Puerto Rico, the
U.S. territories, the continental United States, and abroad.
These efforts are crucial, but they are costly and they fall
well outside of current agency appropriations. To meet these
immediate needs, the Administration conducted a careful
examination of existing Ebola balances and identified $510
million to redirect towards Zika response activities. We have
also redirected an additional $79 million from other
activities. This reprogramming, while necessary, is not
without cost. It is particularly painful at a time when state
and local public health departments are already strained.
While this immediate infusion of resources is necessary to
enable the Administration to take critical first steps in our
response to the public health threat posed by Zika, it is
insufficient. Without significant additional appropriations
this summer, the Nation's efforts to comprehensively respond
to the disease will be severely undermined. In particular,
the Administration may need to suspend crucial activities,
such as mosquito control and surveillance in the absence of
emergency supplemental funding. State and local governments
that manage mosquito control and response operations will not
be able to hire needed responders to engage in mosquito
mitigation efforts. Additionally, the Administration's
ability to move to the next phase of vaccine development,
which requires multi-year commitments from the Government to
encourage the private sector to prioritize Zika research and
development, could be jeopardized. Without emergency
supplemental funding, the development of faster and more
accurate diagnostic tests also will be impeded. The
Administration may not be able to conduct follow up of
children born to pregnant women with Zika to better
understand the range of Zika impacts, particularly those
health effects that are not evident at birth. The
supplemental request is also needed to replenish the amounts
that we are now spending from our Ebola accounts to fund
Zika-related activities. This will ensure we have sufficient
contingency funds to address unanticipated needs related to
both Zika and Ebola. As we have seen with both Ebola and
Zika, there are still many unknowns about the science and
scale of the outbreak and how it will impact mothers, babies,
and health systems domestically and abroad.
The Administration is pleased to learn that there is
bipartisan support for providing emergency funding to address
the Zika crisis, but we remain concerned about the adequacy
and speed of this response. To properly protect the American
public, and in particular pregnant women and their newborns,
Congress must fund the Administration's request of $1.9
billion and find a path forward to address this public health
emergency immediately. The American people deserve action
now. With the summer months fast approaching, we continue to
believe that the Zika supplemental should not be considered
as part of the regular appropriations process, as it relates
to funding we must receive this year in order to most
effectively prepare for and mitigate the impact of the virus.
We urge you to pass free-standing emergency supplemental
funding legislation at the level requested by the
Administration before Congress leaves town for the Memorial
Day recess. We look forward to working with you to protect
the safety and health of all Americans.
Sincerely,
Shaun Donovan,
Director, The Office of Management and Budget.
Susan Rice,
National Security Advisor.
Mr. McGOVERN. The letter basically says that the existing
appropriations are not enough. This is what the letter says: ``Without
significant additional appropriations this summer, the Nation's efforts
to comprehensively respond to the disease will be severely undermined.
In particular, the administration may need to suspend crucial
activities, such as mosquito control and surveillance in the absence of
emergency supplemental funding. State and local governments that manage
mosquito control and response operations will not be able to hire
needed responders to engage in mosquito mitigation efforts.
Additionally, the administration's ability to move to the next phase of
vaccine development, which requires multiyear commitments from the
government to encourage the private sector to prioritize Zika research
and development, could be jeopardized.''
I mean, I go right down the list on all the warnings here. This is a
big deal. This is a big deal. If my friends on the other side are
trying to rationalize putting this off, I would suggest to reread this
letter. Reread this letter. Talk to the scientists. Talk to the
experts. We need to have the necessary resources to be able to combat
what might come our way in terms of the Zika virus. I want to do this
so that we don't have a loss of life here in this country, so we are
prepared.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous
question. I ask Members to defeat it so that the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) can offer an amendment for this House to
immediately consider legislation to confront the Zika crisis. There are
already 891 confirmed cases of the Zika virus in the United States and
its territories, and 81 of them are pregnant women. This is an
emergency.
We do have a disaster relief fund in this Congress. It is about $8
billion so that when there is a flood, when there is a fire, when there
is a hurricane, we can immediately move to take that
[[Page H2013]]
money and address the costs of life and other costs from that disaster.
Unfortunately, we don't have a public health emergency fund, which is
why the President is asking for $1.9 billion. This is an emergency. We
cannot afford to wait another day to approve the President's request.
Every day we delay, we redirect crucial resources away from city and
State emergency preparedness funding. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Cities and States across the country are being robbed of emergency
preparedness grants, $44 million in total. Not only will these States
have fewer resources to address public health crises, they will have
fewer resources to address the Zika virus itself. Already in addition
to that $44 million, the administration has reprogrammed $510 million
from the Ebola crisis funding, and that crisis is not over in western
Africa.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am going to include in the Record a list
of all of the States and the amount of money that they have already
lost in emergency grants for preparedness for health emergencies.
California, almost 10 percent loss; Florida, almost 10 percent loss;
North Carolina, 8 percent; Texas, almost 10 percent in money taken away
from preparedness grants.
Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that in the midst of a global
health crisis, we cannot appropriate emergency funds to save lives and
instead resort to gutting our States' emergency preparedness.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to think of the women
across our country and the predicament that they face today of choosing
whether or not they should get pregnant or, if they are already
pregnant, wondering whether or not their baby is okay. We must fund the
President's request. It is the responsible and moral thing to do.
Yes, today, physicians are divided as to whether or not they should
tell women of the United States not to get pregnant. Is that the
message we want to send to American women? I don't think so.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, I again urge my colleagues to vote against the previous
question so we can bring forward a bill that we believe can help
adequately prepare this country to deal with the Zika virus, something
that I think the majority of Americans support, whether they are
Democrats or Republicans.
This should not be a controversial issue. If it is, then people can
vote against it if it comes to the floor, but what we do know is that
what we have done up to this point in terms of our responsibility here
in Congress in providing the funds has not been adequate. I read
earlier from the letter from the White House all the things that could
be on hold or not move forward if we don't adequately fund the
necessary infrastructure to deal with this crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I would also say that it seems to me that dealing
effectively with the Zika crisis is a heck of a lot more important than
what we are being asked to vote on and debate today. I have been saying
this every time I come to the floor and handle a rule, but it seems
that legislation that has minimum impact or that in some cases might
even be trivial takes precedence over legislation that actually might
do something to help lift up the lives of people in this country or,
even in this case, protect the lives of people in this country.
We ought to come together in a bipartisan way to make sure that at
least priority items come to the floor of the House. This is supposed
to be the people's House, and that is where the people's business is
supposed to be done. We are not doing it. By not addressing the Zika
crisis more forthrightly, we are not doing the people's business.
So, again, vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on
the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
What a great day to be on the floor for us to really bring forth our
ideas. The obligations that we have here as Members of Congress to work
with each other, to listen to each other is apparent to me, but I don't
think apparent to every single person.
We have allowed, meaning Chairman Rogers has allowed, in consultation
with the Speaker, for money to be reprogrammed, which is aplenty right
now. We have agreed this is an immediate crisis. We have made sure the
administration is not wanting for a penny. We recognize that in the
processes that will take place, we will go through in a regular order
procedure getting these funds reprogrammed and allocated to fill back
up the bucket.
{time} 1315
I have satisfied myself that we are trying to do the right thing. I
have great concern that the American people understand we do care about
the children and the families. I get this. We do care. And until we go
through this process to further develop it and add money, the
administration has the money necessary to do as they see fit to protect
the American people, to combat this virus--this disease--and to make
sure that we get a handle on it.
Mr. Speaker, the value of startups, which is why we are here today,
cannot be understated.
Founded in 2013, back home in Dallas, Texas, which I have the
pleasure of representing, is the Dallas Entrepreneur Center, or DEC,
which is a nonprofit created to help entrepreneurs start, build, and
grow companies. According to the DEC, over 1,000 jobs were created in
the past 2 years and another 500 are expected to be hired by Dallas
startups in 2016. That is the power of what we are talking about.
The SEC has gotten in the way of this, not only with red tape, but
with consternation directly back at the process that the free
enterprise system has to make these jobs happen.
Investment in startups has been done in Dallas. Companies like
Edition Collective, Rise, PICKUP, and Visage Payroll in Dallas, Texas,
are prime examples of the success that could take place all across this
country, not just in Dallas, Texas, but in other places where
entrepreneurs should be king also. And they are king because they are
providing jobs--good-paying jobs--for people.
Mr. Speaker, the Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act is a
bipartisan, bicameral bill that provides small, innovative companies
and startups access to the capital they need, just as we have talked
about that exists in Dallas, Texas. We are helping them succeed. We are
helping them to innovate and grow jobs and turn them into opportunities
for our Nation to have better products and services.
As Angus King, a Senator from Maine who is one of the Senate's
cosponsors, said: ``By fixing flawed Federal rules, the HALOS Act will
remove unnecessary roadblocks and help startups grow and thrive.''
I couldn't have said it better myself. He needs it in Maine. We need
it in Dallas, Texas. We do not have all the jobs we need. There are
still too many people unemployed in our country. That is why we are
here doing this.
In particular, two Dallas startups, iSIGHT Partners and Bottle
Rocket, are revolutionizing the field of cyber threat intelligence and
mobile strategy development, respectively. Imagine for just a moment
what it took them, despite these problems in the marketplace, to get
started and get done. I think it is time that we allow others the
opportunity to make life a little bit easier.
For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. This
awesome legislation and what it represents is bipartisan, is bicameral,
and has no boundaries of who may participate.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 701 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. 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.
5044) making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2016
to respond to Zika virus. 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 among
and controlled by the chair
[[Page H2014]]
and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations and the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on the Budget. 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 5044.
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 Democratic minority 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.''
The Republican majority may 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________