[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 59 (Wednesday, April 5, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H2708-H2715]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1219, SUPPORTING AMERICA'S
INNOVATORS ACT OF 2017, AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD
FROM APRIL 7, 2017, THROUGH APRIL 24, 2017
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 242 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 242
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1219) to
amend the Investment Company Act of 1940 to expand the
investor limitation for qualifying venture capital funds
under an exemption from the definition of an investment
company. 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; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. . On any legislative day during the period from
April 7, 2017, through April 24, 2017--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 3. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 4. Each day during the period addressed by section 2
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for
purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1546).
Sec. 5. Each day during the period addressed by section 2
of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for
purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carter of Georgia). The gentleman from
Colorado is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BUCK. 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. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
{time} 1230
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation. H.R. 1219, the Supporting America's Innovators
Act of 2017, will allow America's small businesses to thrive, creating
jobs, developing incredible products and services, and growing our
Nation's economy.
Starting a business, designing a product, developing a service, these
projects often require upfront capital. For entrepreneurs and startups
in this country, access to capital is one of the biggest hurdles they
will face. Without it, they may not have the cash on hand for research
and development, the funds to make payroll at the end of the month, or
the raw material needed to start production.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1219 seeks to provide more sources of funding for
our small businesses by raising the cap that requires a group of
investors to register as an investment company. This change in the law
is important. It allows angel funds, which are basically a pool of
accredited investors, to permit up to 250 investors in one fund as
opposed to the 100 permitted by current law.
As long as the fund does not exceed $10 million in capital
commitments, it would be considered a qualified venture capital fund
that is exempt from costly registration with the SEC.
Angel funds allow individuals who may not otherwise invest in
startups to join together and direct their investment dollars to
promising young companies. Without raising the cap on the size of these
funds, we may be pushing potential investors out of the market.
Small businesses, in their earliest stages, often have nowhere to
turn for credit. While banks have historically been a source of funds,
in recent years, small business loans from banks have declined. That is
where these groups of individual investors come in. In many cases, they
are providing just enough cash to push businesses off the ground to the
next level of funding; but by overregulating groups of angel investors,
we are blocking significant sources of capital from ever reaching
startups.
We need to wisely regulate in this country, and this legislation
doesn't eliminate the need for larger investment funds to register with
the SEC. It simply raises the cap for smaller groups of individuals to
contribute a limited amount of funds to the American small business
community. For businesses on the receiving end, these funds may be the
difference between success and bankruptcy.
Thankfully, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act has already
raised the cap requiring companies to register with the SEC from 500
investors to 2,000 investors. By allowing small companies
[[Page H2709]]
to seek more individual investors, these businesses can expand the
number of individuals who have a stake in the company's future, the
number of individuals who will ensure the venture succeeds.
H.R. 1219 is a natural complement to the JOBS Act, allowing those
potential investors to more easily join their resources to efficiently
and successfully invest in America's small businesses. In fact, the
current limit on the number of investors who can join together, set by
the Investment Company Act of 1940, is a relic from nearly 80 years
ago. In the past 80 years, our financial market and our economy have
drastically changed. The barriers to entry for small businesses in many
industries are lower than ever.
Just yesterday, I spent time with Etash Kalra. Etash is a young man
from my district who won the Congressional App Challenge. Already, in
high school, he takes computer science classes and codes smartphone
apps. He even started a club to teach others programming.
He and students like him have many of the skills needed to start a
small business. They have the ability to create software programs that
consumers want and need. They may start small, they may start in high
school, but they hold great potential.
Many individual investors may see that potential. This bill allows
those investors to make a down payment on the future of these young
entrepreneurs. Without growing the sources and amount of capital
available to these businesses, we will end up stifling the innovation
and entrepreneurial spirit that our country is known for.
Our Nation is successful because Americans are innovators and hard
workers. Those Americans who start businesses embody this spirit. We
are not here asking for the government to help these people succeed.
No, these individuals are fully capable of building businesses on their
own. But we are here asking the government to step out of the way so
that our fellow citizens can help American small businesses succeed.
This rule and the underlying legislation should not be controversial.
Last Congress, similar legislation passed the Financial Services
Committee by a vote of 57-2. It then passed the House by a vote of 388-
9.
Yesterday, I came to the House floor and spoke about the importance
of passing bipartisan bills. Many Americans see their Capital awash in
partisanship and bickering. They suffer under poorly crafted policies,
while politicians in D.C. fail to find consensus on legislation that
would help. They wonder why politicians who talk about bipartisanship
on the campaign trail can't come together in Washington to pass
commonsense legislation.
The challenge before us is to find solutions to our Nation's problems
that overlap the principles held by both parties. That is why this bill
is refreshing. It stands as an exemplar of the sort of consensus-driven
legislation that can earn America's trust.
Everyone can agree that innovative companies help the American
economy grow and add to the quality of life in our Nation. Everyone
recognizes how important access to capital is for small businesses.
This bill was reported out of the Financial Services Committee with
overwhelming support. I ask now that the entire House support the rule
and this underlying legislation.
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 want to thank the gentleman for yielding
me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is the 28th closed rule we are considering in
Congress. Let me repeat that. This is the 28th closed rule that we are
considering in this Congress. That means that 64 percent of the rules
that the Republican leadership has brought to the floor this year have
been completely closed, with no opportunity for Democrats or
Republicans to offer their ideas to expand upon or improve the
legislation.
Under a closed rule, you can't even offer an amendment to fix a typo.
If somebody is in their office listening to the debate on this bill and
has an idea on how to improve it, they are denied that opportunity to
offer any amendments on the floor--in short, no amendments.
Mr. Speaker, this place is called the people's House. Maybe it should
be called the Russia House because this is the way they legislate in
Russia, completely closed, no opportunity for different ideas to be
brought before the Congress and debated.
I have never, in all my years in Congress, experienced a more
authoritarian approach to legislating than I have in this Congress. I
have never encountered a more closed Congress than this Congress is.
This is not right, and it should not be considered normal. Not only
Democrats should be outraged, but Republicans ought to be outraged as
well.
You know, I wish my Republican friends had learned something from the
collapse of their healthcare bill a few weeks ago. They rushed to the
floor a bill cobbled together in the dark of night, filled with bribes
and backroom deals. In fact, to strong-arm Members into voting for the
bill and to correct for all the technical drafting errors that occurred
thanks to their secretive process, there were not one, not two, not
even three, but five--that is right, five--separate manager's
amendments filed with the Rules Committee.
Now, let me explain that.
Only the people who wrote the bill were allowed to amend it. They
wrote it so quickly, so sloppily, that they had to amend their
amendments. I mean, this would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.
And even after all of that, they were not able to piece together votes
within their own Conference, and the bill imploded.
Well, it was a mess from beginning to end; and, to put it bluntly,
the process was a disaster. Don't take it from me. Listen to Sean
Hannity of FOX News. Now, don't adjust your television set. I am
actually going to quote FOX News--and Sean Hannity, at that. I can't
believe that he and I agree on something.
Here is what he said. According to a CNN report, he said: ``Now, this
legislation was flawed from the beginning. It was created behind closed
doors. Not one single Member saw the bill until it was rolled out. And
that made it a disaster.''
That is Sean Hannity, one of President Trump's biggest cheerleaders,
one of the biggest cheerleaders of my Republican friends. Here he is
trashing the Republican health bill. And if that is not a wake-up call
for Republicans, I don't know what is. You know, if Republicans are
being criticized on their process by Sean Hannity, they have a serious
problem.
Now we are reading that Republicans are again huddling in back rooms
in the Capitol in an effort to resurrect their terrible plan to repeal
the Affordable Care Act, strip important protections away from our
constituents, and put insurance companies in charge of our health care.
There it is on the front page of today's Washington Post: ``GOP Presses
for New Health Plan.''
Now, I haven't been invited to any of these secret backroom
negotiations, but from what we are hearing, it isn't good. It seems
that things are not looking good for hospitals. MassDevice alerted us
to the fact that: ``Hospital Stocks Fall as GOP Looks to Revive
TrumpCare Bill.''
It appears as though Republicans are still working to make their bill
even more devastating. Mother Jones reported: ``TrumpCare 2.0 Still
Isn't Cruel Enough to Satisfy Conservatives.''
Yesterday, Tribune Media Wire wrote about: ``How the Revised
TrumpCare Plan Could Hit Americans with Preexisting Conditions.''
I include in the Congressional Record, Mr. Speaker, an article that
appears in today's New York Times about how the latest health proposal
weakens coverage for preexisting conditions.
[From the New York Times, Apr. 4, 2017]
Republican Health Proposal Would Undermine Coverage for Pre-Existing
Conditions
(By Margot Sanger-Katz)
Throughout the debate to repeal and replace the Affordable
Care Act, President Trump and Republican congressional
leaders have insisted they would retain a crucial, popular
part of the health law: the promise that people can buy
insurance even if they've had illnesses in the past.
[[Page H2710]]
Their efforts foundered last month, when a House health
bill had to be pulled from the floor after it failed to
attract enough support. Late Monday night, word emerged that
the White House and the group of conservative lawmakers known
as the Freedom Caucus had discussed a proposal to revive the
bill. But the proposed changes would effectively cast the
Affordable Care Act's pre-existing conditions provision
aside.
The terms, described by Representative Mark Meadows,
Republican of North Carolina and the head of the Freedom
Caucus, are something like this: States would have the option
to jettison two major parts of the Affordable Care Act's
insurance regulations. They could decide to opt out of
provisions that require insurers to cover a standard, minimum
package of benefits, known as the essential health benefits.
And they could decide to do away with a rule that requires
insurance companies to charge the same price to everyone who
is the same age, a provision called community rating.
The proposal is not final, but Mr. Meadows told reporters
after the meeting that his members would be interested in
such a bill. To pass the House, any bill would need to find
favor not just with the Freedom Caucus, but also with more
moderate Republicans. It would also need to attract the
support of nearly every Republican in the Senate to become
law.
The ability to opt out of the benefit requirements could
substantially reduce the value of insurance on the market. A
patient with cancer might, for example, still be allowed to
buy a plan, but it wouldn't do her much good if that plan was
not required to cover chemotherapy drugs.
The second opt-out would make the insurance options for
those with pre-existing conditions even more meaningless.
Technically, the deal would still prevent insurers from
denying coverage to people with a history of illness. But
without community rating, health plans would be free to
charge those patients as much as they wanted. If both of the
Obamacare provisions went away, the hypothetical cancer
patient might be able to buy only a plan, without
chemotherapy coverage, that costs many times more than a
similar plan costs a healthy customer. Only cancer patients
with extraordinary financial resources and little interest in
the fine print would sign up.
There is a reason that many conservatives want to do away
with these provisions. Because they help people with
substantial health care needs buy relatively affordable
coverage, they drive up the price of insurance for people who
are healthy. An insurance market that did not include cancer
care--or even any cancer patients--would be one where
premiums for the remaining customers were much lower. The
result might be a market that is much more affordable for
people with a clean bill of health. But it would become
largely inaccessible to anyone who really needs help paying
for medical care.
We do not have to speculate to know what the world looks
like without essential health benefits and community rating.
It was how most state insurance markets worked before
Obamacare. Back in 2009, most sick people who did not get
insurance through work or a government program were excluded
from coverage if they had a history of health problems like
allergies or arthritis. Plans that did not cover pregnancy
care or drug addiction treatment were widespread. (The data
about individual market insurance premiums is a little
spotty, but it appears that they were substantially lower in
most states.)
One idea Republicans have about how to care for the sick
was also in effect pre-Obamacare. Many states had ``high-risk
pools,'' where people shut out of the traditional insurance
markets could buy special plans with the help of state
subsidies. The Freedom Caucus proposal is likely to include
some money that states could use to set up such pools.
``The fundamental idea is that marginally sick people would
pay with risk associated with their coverage,'' Mr. Meadows
said Monday. ``Those that have, you know, premiums that would
be driven up because of catastrophic illness or long-term
illnesses, we've been dealing with that for a long time with
high-risk pools.''
But insurance in the old high-risk pools tended to be
expensive, and often came with long waiting periods or
benefit limitations, even for the very sick.
The main difference between the policy environment in 2009
and today is that the federal government would now be
offering tax credits to help healthy people buy what would
probably be relatively skimpy plans. That would mean that
more middle-income Americans would probably have health
coverage than before the Affordable Care Act, since the
combination of policies would tend to make insurance much
more affordable for people who are young and healthy.
What states would choose to do with this set of options is
hard to predict. Before Obamacare, few states required
community rating of health plans. And few states required
insurers to cover all of the benefits deemed essential under
Obamacare, though most did require a few types of treatments
to be covered. State governments would face a difficult
choice: either take away the requirements, and leave sick
patients without insurance options, or keep them and see
people unable to afford coverage under the new subsidy
system.
Under Obamacare, states can already waive many of the law's
insurance rules if they can show that an alternative program
would cover as many people with comprehensive coverage at a
lower cost to the government. But that standard is difficult
to meet. Mr. Meadows suggested that the waivers under
discussion should be ``very easily granted'' to states.
The politics of health care in the United States have
shifted since the Affordable Care Act was passed seven years
ago. In recent months, the law has grown more popular, and
the pre-existing conditions policy is among its best-known
protections. That could create political pressure for states
to keep the insurance rules, even if they are not required by
law. But it is likely that at least some states might decide
to eliminate them if they are made optional. Shifting norms
about health insurance regulation may also affect the idea's
reception in Congress.
Mr. Meadows said that the proposal presented to the Freedom
Caucus would retain the pre-existing conditions policy. But
that would be true in only the most literal sense. The mix of
policies could allow insurance companies to charge sick
people prices that few of them could pay. And it could allow
them to exclude benefits that many healthy people need when
they get sick. The result could be a world where people with
pre-existing conditions would struggle to buy comprehensive
health insurance--just like before Obamacare.
Thomas Kaplan contributed reporting.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I mean, preexisting conditions. Oh, my
God. What are my friends thinking about?
And we are reading that essential health benefits are still on the
chopping block.
You know, these are some of the main provisions of the ACA that
people like, that people need, and that people deserve.
Protecting essential health benefits in people with preexisting
conditions is our moral obligation. Taking these protections away from
people would be cruel and unjust and immoral. I would say to my
Republican friends: You don't have to do it.
But I guess we will have to wait and see until these secret
negotiators emerge from their back rooms with details to share. And I
will start getting ready for the next emergency Rules Committee. I am
looking forward to that meeting because that will probably be the only
time we will have to talk about the bill because I think it is probably
too much to expect that my Republican friends would actually, this time
around, hold a hearing. Maybe they will bypass a markup, but they will
have to go to the Rules Committee in an emergency meeting, and we will
probably look forward to another martial law rule.
But we are doing this bill today that no one has ever heard of. It
was a noncontroversial suspension bill last year, but now we lift it up
like it is the most important piece of business that we are facing in
America today. You know, what about the urgent priorities facing our
country?
I think it is clear that Speaker Ryan and the majority leader are
grasping for filler legislation to keep us busy on the House floor so
that the American people really don't see really how dysfunctional this
majority really is.
Representative Mario Diaz-Balart, a Member of the Republican
Conference, said, and I think he said it best last week when he said:
``It's pretty evident that we don't have the votes among Republicans to
do, in essence, anything that's real.''
Maybe that is why we are wasting our time this week on these bills
instead of moving an infrastructure package or finishing the FY17
appropriations process, which should have been finalized last year.
I will remind my Republican colleagues that our government runs out
of funding on April 28. That is 5 legislative days from now, since we
are going on break at the end of this week. Now, maybe, again, this is
a radical idea, but maybe we should be dealing with that today.
I am beginning to give up hope for regular order in the
appropriations process under the Republican leadership, but I would
have thought we would at least have some insight about a funding bill
by now. Again, 5 legislative days from now, the government potentially
could be shut down.
Maybe some of you think that the underlying legislation that this
rule would allow us to consider, a bill to increase the number of
companies that are exempted from certain SEC regulations, is vitally
important. Maybe you are being inundated with calls about this issue. I
don't know. Maybe your townhalls are overflowing with people
[[Page H2711]]
demanding this SEC suspension bill, but I am certain that no Member of
this body could say with a straight face that this is somehow more
important than keeping the entire Federal Government open.
For the life of me, I don't understand why we always have to get
right up to the edge of the cliff, but here we are again. Today is just
the latest example that the priorities of this Republican leadership do
not serve the American people.
I would urge my colleagues to think about this as we spend time in
our districts over the next 2 weeks. Maybe, when we get back, Congress
can actually do its job and fund the government and focus on things
that are important like a jobs bill or an infrastructure bill instead
of more of the same Republican messaging bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I have an inquiry for the Speaker, if I may.
What is the title of this bill?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). The Clerk has read the title of
the bill. Would the gentleman like the Clerk to re-read the title of
the bill?
Mr. BUCK. That is all right, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it.
I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), my
friend.
Mr. HUIZENGA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise, and
I do feel like, to clarify, the bill title of H.R. 1219 is Supporting
America's Innovators Act.
Our colleagues have seen time and time and time again that the other
side has wanted to come to the floor and talk about everything other
than what we are dealing with. But I do want to lay out, as one of the
senior members of the committee, what has happened in Financial
Services when we have dealt with this.
Last Congress, this exact bill passed 52-2 in the committee, with the
ranking member supporting the bill. There were no dissenting minority
views that were offered. And now, with this particular piece of
legislation, H.R. 1219, there were no amendments even offered at the
Rules Committee.
So which is it? My friends across the aisle complain when we don't do
regular order. They complain if this had gone on suspension. I am kind
of reminded of Groucho Marx in his movie, ``Horse Feathers.'' Whatever
that is, I am against it. That seems to be their attitude.
But I do look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle
to make sure that they join me in supporting government funding when we
are going to be dealing with that here shortly.
So on to our bill here, H.R. 1219, unless the opposition, the other
side of the aisle, would like to continue to talk about a lot of
nongermane things; I will keep bringing up Susan Rice and her illegally
unmasking people if they would like to do that. We can continue with
that conversation.
I would prefer to talk about H.R. 1219. So we know that small
businesses and entrepreneurs are the heartbeat of the American economy,
and access to financial capital is vital for entrepreneurs seeking
startup money, or to operate, or to expand their businesses. However,
gaining access to capital has remained an enduring challenge for small
businesses.
The financial crisis and the Great Recession made the situation worse
as capital became increasingly hard to access from institutional banks
and various capital players. And while conditions have improved
somewhat in the recent years, many entrepreneurs continue to struggle
with accessing the capital that they need to compete and to grow.
In order to succeed, these companies need capital and credit, which
is the lifeblood for growth, expansion, and job creation. Yet the
government continues to construct arbitrary walls that cut them off
from essential financing as smaller companies are caught in a sea of
regulatory red tape created by Washington bureaucrats oftentimes.
As we had a similar bill yesterday, I made the point at that time as
well. We know that 60 percent of all net new jobs that have been
created here in the United States, 60 percent of all net new jobs that
have been created here over the last 2 decades, have come from these
small businesses.
Congress has made strides in tailoring the regulatory environment for
these smaller companies--most notably when we passed, with strong
bipartisan support, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or JOBS
Act, in 2012. That was a bipartisan bill that was signed by President
Obama.
The JOBS Act's benefits are notable as more and more companies use
its provisions to raise investment capital in both the public and the
private markets. And the JOBS Act raised the cap on investors in a
privately held company from 500 to 2,000 investors, but the limit on
the number of investors acting as a coordinated group to invest in a
company remained at 100, where it has been since 1940, some 77 years
ago. I think it is about time that we update that.
As noted by Kevin Laws, of AngelList in his written testimony before
the Capital Markets Subcommittee: ``With online fundraising and general
solicitation becoming more common because of the JOBS Act, companies
are bumping up against the limit more frequently. The current limit . .
. now acts as a brake on the amount of money the company wanted to
raise, leaving tens of millions of dollars on the table that did not go
into startups.''
Well, H.R. 1219, the Supporting America's Innovators Act, a
bipartisan bill introduced by Representatives Patrick McHenry and Nydia
Velazquez, would amend the cap currently contained in the Investment
Company Act to allow 250 investors, instead of that 100, for a
qualified venture capital fund, and, therefore, enhance angel
investors' ability to provide important funding to our small
businesses.
This bill is a very modest increase to the current exemption which
has been in place for nearly 77 years, since 1940. Modernizing the cap
is long overdue and reflects today's capital markets realities and the
increasingly important role that angel investors play as they commit
the funds necessary to help these small businesses grow.
The Securities and Exchange Commission continues to ignore the
backlog of good ideas to spur capital formation recommended by
entrepreneurs, small businesses, and market participants at the SEC's
annual government-business forum on capital formation. So in the SEC's
absence, Congress must act to promote market efficiency and capital
formation. That is what we are here to do today, and I do think that
that is an extremely important thing for us to do here in Congress.
I think that we can all agree that we support smart regulation that
protects investors and maintains orderly and efficient markets.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BUCK. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. HUIZENGA. I think we can all agree that we need to support smart
regulation that protects investors and maintains orderly and efficient
markets. But outdated, excessive, and unnecessary regulation where
costs outweigh the benefits is just dumb regulation that overly burdens
smaller companies.
So let's provide some regulatory relief by enacting this bipartisan
bill that will ease the burdens on small businesses and job creators to
help foster capital formation and get Americans back to work.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am glad the gentleman from Michigan believes that closed rules are
regular order--maybe in Russia, but that is not supposed to be the norm
here in the people's House. We have an obligation to actually debate
serious bills.
Right now, my Republican friends are behind closed doors somewhere in
the Capitol debating healthcare legislation. And what I am against is
this whole process. This is backwards. My Republican friends ought to
be out in the open debating health care. They ought to be doing
hearings. This is what I am objecting to.
In the scheme of things, this is a relatively minor piece of
legislation, compared to my Republican friends' plans to repeal the
Affordable Care Act.
Yes, we should be debating Russia and all the ties that the Trump
administration has with Russia. The question
[[Page H2712]]
used to be: Who in the administration has ties with Russia? Now the
question is: Who in this administration doesn't have ties with Russia?
Yes, those are important things we ought to be talking about. But, come
on.
What we are objecting to is you bringing filler to the floor while,
in secret, you are trying to dismantle health care in a way that we
believe will harm millions and millions of Americans; that will take
away their protections, those who have preexisting conditions; that
will throw millions of people off of their insurance; that will take
away essential health benefits. Yeah, that is important to us, and it
is important to the American people.
What we are objecting to is a process where you debate these issues
in secret and you bring stuff like this to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, this week, President Trump signed a bill to allow
internet service providers to sell their customers' sensitive
information. This information includes location, financial and health
data, information about customers' children, Social Security numbers,
web browsing history, app usage history, and the content of their
customers' communications, such as emails and video chats.
Yet, amazingly, President Trump's tax return information is still off
limits to the American people. Every President since Gerald Ford has
disclosed his tax return information. These returns have provided a
basic level of transparency that has helped to ensure the public's
interest is placed first.
So the message from President Trump and the Republican Party is
clear: It is okay for companies to profit off your medical and
financial information, or information contained in your private emails,
but the American voter is not allowed to know if the President has any
conflicts of interest. That is right. Donald Trump's privacy matters,
but your privacy doesn't.
Internet companies can auction off your private, personal information
to the highest bidder. But information related to Donald Trump's
business life must be kept secret.
Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better, and it is incumbent
upon us, as the people's elected Representatives, to hold the executive
branch accountable.
So I am going to ask people to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
And if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to
the rule to bring up Representative Eshoo's bill, which will require
Presidents and major party nominees for the Presidency to release their
tax returns.
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, this is a big deal. The American people
have a right to know because the American people are concerned that
this White House is on a collision course with corruption. It is time
to let a little light shine on the President's tax returns so the
American people know what his dealings have been and know what, quite
frankly, they have been able to know about every other President and
every other major party nominee.
I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Eshoo) to discuss our proposal.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for
yielding the time to me.
While I support the underlying bill, I want to urge my colleagues to
defeat the previous question so that this bipartisan legislation, the
Presidential Tax Transparency Act, can be made in order for
consideration and a vote.
The legislation is very simple. It is not pages and pages and pages.
It simply states that there will be a requirement that the President of
the United States, all future Presidents, and Presidential nominees of
the major parties publicly disclose their tax returns. For decades,
Republican and Democratic Presidents and Republican and Democratic
candidates of both parties have voluntarily disclosed this information,
but not this President.
Now, this tradition began in 1973, with President Richard Nixon who,
while under audit by the IRS, publicly released his tax returns and
submitted them for review by Congress because there was a mini scandal
at that time regarding his claims of charitable giving. He released his
tax returns and, shortly after, gave what became a famous speech:
``People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook.
Well, I am not a crook.''
The Joint Committee on Taxation, at that time, ultimately found
numerous errors in the President's return, and that he owed about a
half a million dollars in back taxes, and he paid them.
Now, since then, every President has voluntarily released their tax
returns. But this tradition is now being tested by a President who
continues to hide his finances and faces an unprecedented number of
potential conflicts of interest relating to his business empire.
Now, through his financial disclosure forms, we know that he has some
564 businesses around the world and inside the United States. This is a
legitimate question being posed by the American people, and that is: If
we don't know, whose interest is he operating under? Who is he there
for?
Is he making decisions relative to trade that will benefit his
business? We don't know. Why? Because a tax return is highly
instructive. Tax returns disclose to whom you owe debt, what the debt
is, where your businesses are, whether they are in the United States or
in a foreign country, whether you have made charitable donations,
whether you have paid taxes, whether you have avoided taxes, whether
you have used loopholes, whether you have dollars in offshore areas. So
this is an essential.
I want my Republican friends to think of something. This is not a
partisan issue. This should concern you just as much as it concerns
your constituents. The American people across the country, 74 percent,
say that his tax returns should be disclosed.
{time} 1300
We are now moving into an area of questions about national security.
Who is the President doing business with?
Whose interests come first? Is it the national security of the United
States of America by the Commander in Chief, or is it for some Trump
business?
These are very serious questions that you should want answered.
In a democracy--in a democracy--transparency is essential. They go
hand in hand. We are not a banana republic. We don't have people in
charge of the government that stand above the law or just disregard it.
In this case, it is not the law. It is a beautiful tradition that
patriots on the Republican side and the Democratic side honored. Why
did they honor it? I think they honored it because they wanted to honor
the American people. That is what this effort is about.
Now, it is important to note that the President wasn't always opposed
to this important transparency. As far back as 2011, he said that he
would release his tax returns if he ran for President.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California an
additional 2 minutes.
Ms. ESHOO. In 2012, he criticized Mitt Romney for not releasing his
returns until late in the campaign. In 2014, Mr. Trump told an Irish
television network: ``If I decide to run for office, I'll produce my
tax returns, absolutely.'' In 2016, he said repeatedly that he would
release his returns ``over the next few months'' and ``before the
election.'' It hasn't happened yet.
So all of these issues should concern all Members of Congress
because, as I said a moment ago, transparency is essential in a
democracy.
Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time this year that I have offered
the Presidential Tax Transparency Act as the previous question motion,
and today I filed a discharge petition on the bill, which I encourage
all of my colleagues to sign at the desk. If we defeat the previous
question today or if we reach 218 Members of the House on the discharge
petition, we can vote on this bipartisan legislation and ensure--
underscore ``ensure''--that the President of the United States provides
transparency for the American people now and in the future.
[[Page H2713]]
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of an old Western movie, ``The Man Who
Shot Liberty Valance,'' and a line in that movie: ``When the legend
becomes fact, print the legend.''
It turns out, Mr. Speaker, that this bill was marked up without any
amendments on March 9, 2017, in the Senate Banking Committee and was
favorably reported unanimously and without any amendments offered. It
was also marked up on March 9, 2017, in the Financial Services
Committee and was reported out with a 54-2 vote.
There were no amendments offered on this particular legislation, Mr.
Speaker, in the Rules Committee; and, as a matter of practice, it is
considered a closed rule because there were no amendments offered. So
the idea that somehow this legislation has been hidden and that we are
engaging in some sort of subterfuge is not accurate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hultgren), my good friend.
Mr. HULTGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Colorado.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 1219, the Supporting America's Innovators Act of
2017. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation that has seen
productive debate and almost no opposition when it was considered by
the House Financial Services Committee. The House considered a very
similar bill last July that received 388 votes here in the House in
support.
Congressman Patrick McHenry has been steadfast in his dedication to
finding opportunities to update our securities laws so we can harness
the true power of our capital markets. In recent memory, this started
with the JOBS Act, which was very bipartisan and has been crucial to
reinvigorating our capital markets. However, there is still more we can
do.
The Supporting America's Innovators Act of 2017 increases the limit
on the number of individuals who can invest in certain venture capital
funds before those funds must register with the SEC as investment
companies under the Investment Company Act of 1940. Currently, the act
limits the number of investors in an investment company fund to 100 if
the fund is to be exempt from registration with the SEC. This
registration is an extremely costly regulatory requirement that is not
always appropriate.
The Chamber of Commerce describes this as a fix to what has come to
be known as the ``99 investor problem,'' that is, the requirement that
certain venture capital funds register with the SEC once they reach
their 100th investor. Increasing this low threshold, originally set in
the 1940s, would allow venture capital to continue to play the
important role in the economy that it has in the past.
Unless Congress updates this threshold, startups, the driver of job
creation and economic growth in our districts, will continue to be
choked off from what should be easily accessible and affordable
capital.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support
this bipartisan legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear so that my good friend from
Colorado understands where I am coming from.
I don't really care about this bill. I think it is a noncontroversial
bill that, quite frankly, probably could be approved by voice vote if
it were brought up that way.
The point I am trying to make is that this is a relatively minor bill
compared to some of the important issues that we need to deal with. It
is troublesome to me that, on this bill, which my friend from Colorado
said involved years of hearings and where the sponsor of the bill
consulted with Democratic colleagues--I favor all of that. But what I
am really outraged about is that, while we are talking about this
relatively inconsequential bill and about how wonderful this process
around this bill is, there are meetings going on in secret, right now,
with my Republican colleagues, on dismantling health care in this
country, conversations that might result in tens of millions of
Americans losing their health insurance, conversations involving taking
away essential benefits from insurance packages, conversations that
would basically remove protections for people who have preexisting
conditions.
All of this is going on in secret. We are reading about it in the
press. I am sure my colleagues know about it because they are reading
about it. Maybe they are proud of these secret meetings. I want to know
where these secret meetings are.
I am simply saying to my friends on the other side of the aisle, on
something as big as health care, you ought to be having these meetings
out in the open. There ought to be hearings. You ought to bring in
patients and patient advocate groups. You ought to bring in doctors,
nurses, and heads of hospitals. You ought to bring in people who are
going to be affected by any kind of changes you make in our healthcare
policy.
Instead, it is being done behind closed doors, in secret, and I think
the American people are outraged by that. That is one of the reasons
why the bill you brought to the floor recently only had 17 percent
support amongst the American people.
So what we are objecting to is the fact that we are not bringing to
the floor matters that are urgent, like keeping the government running
and like an infrastructure bill. We are also objecting to the fact that
we are reading that my Republican friends are, once again, behind
closed doors negotiating another healthcare bill that we think will do
great damage to the health care of a lot of people in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and
I will close for our side.
Mr. Speaker, I want to alert my Republican colleagues to some recent
polls that came out today. There is a poll that Qinnipiac did that said
that Trump is more unpopular than Obama ever was, and, today, President
Trump's approval rating is at 35 percent. That is down from 37 percent,
and that is the lowest, I think, of any President this early on in his
Presidency. I think the lowest rating ever was President George W.
Bush. It was at 28 percent, but it took 8 years, two unpopular wars,
and a staggering economy to get to that point. But with President
Trump, we are already at 35 percent. The Gallup Poll says his approval
is at 39 percent.
By the way, the Affordable Care Act, according to Kaiser, now polls
at 55 percent approval rating, and the Republican Congress is about as
low as President Trump is right now.
I am trying to think of the words to help my colleagues understand
what these polls mean. I guess ``not good'' comes to mind, or ``very,
very bad.'' I don't think, even if you tried, you could get poll
numbers so low so early on in a new Congress or so early on in a new
administration.
I would say to my friends the reason for this unpopularity is the way
you are conducting business in our government, that the closed
processes that are being used with regard to legislation I think are
unprecedented. There has never been a more closed Congress than this
one. You were pretty closed last session as well. This is a terrible
pattern.
I agree with my friend, Mr. Buck, on one thing he said. The gentleman
said yesterday that good process produces good policy, but perhaps
equally as important, good process helps instill faith in this
institution. I agree with that. I could have said those remarks here
today.
My question is: If that is the case, why are my Republican friends
tolerating a process on healthcare reform that is now going on that is
being done behind closed doors in some back room somewhere in this
building with no input from patients or patient advocate groups or
doctors or nurses or hospitals or anybody who has anything to do with
health care? Why, on something so important, is the process so closed
and so restrictive and so secretive?
I will tell you, just as this closed process led to a disastrous
Republican healthcare bill recently, this continued closed process will
lead to more disaster. This is not the way we should be doing the
people's business. So we
[[Page H2714]]
strongly object to the way the Republicans are running this House and,
in fact, the way the President is handling this issue as well.
It is always nice to see Vice President Pence in the hallway when he
is walking back and forth, but it would be better to see him in a
public setting talking about what the administration's priorities are,
not rushing from one back room to another back room to another back
room trying to make secret deals to get more people to vote for
something when they have no idea what is in the legislation. That is
not the way of doing business. So we object to the process.
Again, I urge my colleagues to also vote ``no'' on the previous
question so we can have an opportunity to see President Trump's tax
returns. Every President since Gerald Ford has disclosed their tax
returns, every major Presidential candidate, and every day we read in
the newspaper about more and more potential conflicts of interest
between the President and his family. I have to tell you, we are on a
collision course with corruption. The President has promised to drain
the swamp. He has created a cesspool, and it should be of concern to
every single person in this Chamber, Democrat and Republican alike.
I don't think it is too much to ask for transparency when it comes to
the person who is our Commander in Chief. I shudder to think if Hillary
Clinton had won the Presidency and didn't release her tax returns,
the outrage that would be coming from the other side of the aisle. I
can't even imagine how much outrage would be coming from them.
Yet when Donald Trump hides his financial information from Congress
and the American people, there is silence; people don't want to know.
Well, the majority of people do. Poll after poll show the overwhelming
majority of Americans want to know what is in his tax returns.
Why is this such a state secret? Why can't people see what they want
to see and what they have been given with every other President?
So this is an opportunity to put this issue behind us, and if there
is nothing controversial in his taxes, well, then this issue goes away
and we can talk about something else. But maybe there is something he
is hiding. Maybe there is something that we should be concerned about.
Maybe there are conflicts of interest that might be constitutionally
questionable. Maybe there are ties to Russia that would cause my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle more concern.
This idea of hiding this has to stop. I urge my colleagues to vote
``no'' on the previous question and vote ``no'' on the underlying rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1315
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts quoting me
yesterday, and I would love to just emphasize a few of the words that
he said a moment ago: I also shudder to think if Hillary Clinton won
the Presidency.
My friend was kind enough to focus his half hour on H.R. 1219,
Supporting America's Innovators Act of 2017. It is, in fact, a great
piece of legislation, and I am proud to close now on that bill.
We have the opportunity today to improve access to capital for
America's entrepreneurs and startups. The men and women who start
companies in this Nation put everything on the line. They give of their
time and their financial resources. They give of their weekends and
evenings and vacations.
Our economy relies on the small businesses that these men and women
create. Small businesses are the backbone of the American economy. They
provide jobs and important products and services. They contribute to
the life of their communities.
If we want to grow our economy, if we want to increase hiring, if we
want to improve our quality of life, then we need to unleash America's
entrepreneurs and startups. That is why we need to support this bill.
We must expand access to credit for small-business owners. We need to
make it easier for angel investors to take a risk on young companies.
We are not asking the American taxpayer to take a risk or spend any
money on this. We are simply asking the Federal Government to allow
angel investors to join together in larger groups to invest in
promising young American companies.
I am encouraged that this bill represents a bipartisan effort to make
small-business owners in this country more rewarding. When the cost of
starting a small business is outweighed by the reward, our country will
benefit from the resulting innovation and job creation. We simply need
to give entrepreneurs the tools they need to succeed, and one of those
tools is access to capital.
America's entrepreneurs and startups need H.R. 1219. Americans who
want to work for small businesses need H.R. 1219. Americans who want to
buy great products, access incredible services, and visit amazing
websites all need H.R. 1219.
I thank Chief Deputy Whip McHenry for introducing this important
bill, and I thank Chairman Hensarling for bringing this legislation
before us. I also thank Representative Velazquez, Representative
Hollingsworth, Representative Sherman, and Representative Gottheimer
for cosponsoring this legislation.
I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and vote ``yes'' on
the bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 242 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 6. 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.
305) to amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require
the disclosure of certain tax returns by Presidents and
certain candidates for the office of the President, and for
other purposes. 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 respective chairs and ranking minority
members of the Committees on Ways and Means and Oversight and
Government Reform. 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. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 305.
____
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
[[Page H2715]]
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. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Denham). 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.
____________________