[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.

                          ____________________