[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.

                          ____________________