Providing for Consideration of H.R. Accelerating Access to Capital Act of and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Investment Advisers Modernization Act of 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 844 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 844
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2357) to direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to revise Form S-3 so as to add listing and registration of a class of common equity securities on a national securities exchange as an additional basis for satisfying the requirements of General Instruction I.B.1. of such form and to remove such listing and registration as a requirement of General Instruction I.B.6. of such form. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-62. That amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5424) to amend the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and to direct the Securities and Exchange Commission to amend its rules to modernize certain requirements relating to investment advisers, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; (2) the further amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, which is a fair rule that makes in order every single amendment submitted to the Rules Committee. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 5424, the Investment Advisers Modernization Act of 2016, and H.R. 2357, the Accelerating Access to Capital Act of 2016.
This package comes to the floor via the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Chairman Jeb Hensarling, who brought this package to the Rules Committee because of the needs of the American people and the needs of the financial services industry that is trying to grow jobs, investment, and opportunity for people in America.
We have an incredible opportunity before us today, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity to take good ideas, good ideas that come directly from the American people. It is called the financial services industry of the United States of America, men and women who get up and handle our financial needs, many men and women who not only have dedicated themselves to the success of this country, but also to the success of the American people.
We are trying to take this opportunity to move those ideas that they bring to us today through the House of Representatives so that we have a bill that we can present on a bipartisan basis to the United States Senate and to the President of the United States and say these are great ideas.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that your work that you do personally to make sure these ideas are brought forth not only to the Financial Services Committee, but to other areas of this Congress to make sure that we are passing legislation that is about jobs, job creation, and the availability of the American people to have a better shot at the American Dream, is why we are here today.
The goal of this rule and the underlying legislation is simple: to keep the flow of capital moving across our capital markets, to make it easier--not harder--to make it easier to overcome barriers for small businesses, entrepreneurs, and startups to have the capital that they desperately need to grow and thrive.
Mr. Speaker, this part of the American Dream is someone who has great ideas, the ability, and the desire, and to take those ideas and match it up with the capital, a marketing plan, and the ability to move forth in that plan. That is part of the American Dream to make not only your life better but, along the way, a bunch of other people who meet their American Dream also.
Capital is the lifeblood of growing new companies--not a surprise-- and access to capital can literally make or break small business. Mr. Speaker, it can make or break a person's great idea also. That is why we are here today on the floor. Good ideas that come from men and women in the industry, men and women who talk to the Financial Services Committee on a partisan basis, men and women of this Congress bringing these great ideas, and it is all on behalf of trying to give people a better shot at the American Dream through growing companies accessing capital and making the hard break become successful.
I have seen firsthand the detriment of overregulation in industries and poorly written laws, and I have also seen the power of the free enterprise system. While serving as chairman on the board of the Greater East Dallas Chamber of Commerce, I saw, firsthand, companies that could not get the capital that they needed because they weren't large enough to qualify or perhaps had some other burden or impediment in front of them.
As we know today, because of technology, time, and people's purpose, we have the opportunity for doing something remarkable. We have the ability today to enact legislation that will bolster opportunities for small businesses to secure capital, to reduce the strain of a one-size- fits-all regulatory regime, and to take that and add an opportunity to overcome these by using the American spirit and killing regulatory things that stand in the way. That is why we are here.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado's not only observations as a business leader from Colorado, but as a member of the Rules Committee. He recognizes the need for ideas to flow up from the industry to Members of Congress, for us to, on a bipartisan basis, approach these issues to where we can provide safety and soundness for the American people.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, you just heard from one of our brightest new members of the Committee on Financial Services. This committee is full, on a bipartisan basis, of men and women who care very much about growing our economy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about thoughtful young members of the Financial Services Committee, who work with people all across the United States who are engaged in financial services to bring more capital to bear, not only for small business, but also better investment tools, investor tools. We have had the advantage of having not only Mr. Polis, a young entrepreneur from Colorado, but we have had Ed Royce. We have had Tom Emmer.
We now would like to have another very bright, young man who serves on the Financial Services Committee to talk to us, who brings this bill to us from Winfield, Illinois.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in fact, in this colloquy, I do have an additional speaker, and then I would choose to close.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Financial Services has presented a number of their members who have come to the floor today to offer thoughts and ideas on a bipartisan basis, thoughts and ideas that have emanated up from literally financial services experts across the country, commonsense ideas, and investor ideas. They have been vetted. They have been looked at. They have been talked about. They have been marked up on a bipartisan basis; and that is why we are here today, to make capital easier and more available from an investor perspective, as well as from the perspective of the financial services industry.
One of the leaders from the Financial Services Committee for a number of years has been our next speaker, and I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to a favorite son of St. Elizabeth, Missouri (Mr. Luetkemeyer).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would expect at this time that I have no further speakers and will close when given that opportunity.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time I have remaining.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank my colleague, Mr. Polis. Today has been a thoughtful exercise where there was some disagreement. That is okay. That does not bother me, and it should not bother him that he had to speak his mind in areas that he felt were important.
But today, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Polis has very objectively been able to critique the bill in front of us, to provide his analysis of that bill, acknowledging it is a bipartisan bill, acknowledging that this bill is about jobs, job creation, making life better, albeit that it might be one or two people in a neighborhood. This country is full of neighborhoods and full of people who want a better job, people who want a better opportunity to invest, people who want to have their ideas taken up, and this bill came directly to us today from back home, back home people who have ideas, back home people who are looking at rules and regulations and saying, wow, that is an impediment to my good idea.
Mr. Luetkemeyer, Mr. Emmer, Chairman Royce all said, oh, by the way, they have an American Dream they are trying to live up to also, and there are things that are getting in the way of their dream. So they do the things that are necessary to float their ideas up to their Member of Congress. It came to the Committee on Financial Services. The young chairman, Jeb Hensarling, creates ideas that are able to move to legislation. That is why we are here on the floor today, subscribing ideas that provide more capital that is available.
The cost of securities regulation continues to fall heaviest on small companies. Small companies are the engine of our economy, where many of the bright people who today, by graduating from college, going to business school, learning things, they realize as they enter the marketplace, wow, there is another hurdle out there.
That is why we are here today. They want to bring their ideas to the marketplace. We are here to help them through safety and soundness, through working through the instruments of government, and to do so so that traditional financing options are available for small companies that work.
Our predatory administration--that is this Obama administration--is using Dodd-Frank as its main weapon against the free enterprise system today. This administration is using the weapons that they have available to them to stop and stifle and to make more difficult the creation of jobs, the creation of more wealth, the creation of investment, and it is all done. We see this, Mr. Speaker, when we look at GDP growth. Our country is stagnant.
Yesterday, when we were having the motion to recommit, the young gentlewoman from the Democratic side acknowledged most forthrightly, these are difficult financial times. All across America there are terrible financial times because of an administration that chooses to strike at the heart of the free enterprise system: the heart of the free enterprise system in health care, the heart of the free enterprise system in banking, and regulations on the energy industry, striking at the heart of people trying to get homes and keep jobs and to move things.
This administration has a constant attack against jobs, job creation, and, I believe, the American worker, yet they find it easier to give lots of money to other people but not Americans for our own job creation. That is why we are here today. But we are not going to cast this as what this is about.
What this is about is a positive effort about the American Dream, about good ideas, about bipartisanship, about following the rules to get things through a committee, to get things to the Committee on Rules, to get things on the floor, to get people to vote on a bipartisan basis.
We have, essentially, four bills in this rule, four bills that I believe are desperately--I will use that word, ``desperately''--needed by small business to grow and innovate ideas. What is on the other side of that? We have already said it 10 times, the American Dream. But it is also freedom. When issuers sell securities to the public, that means more money goes into the company, money that can be used to hire more people, push a product and make it successful. That is why we are here. We are here to take the ideas, a process, in a bipartisan way.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter which addresses an issue that my dear colleague has talked about, and that is the Zika funding issue.
The letter was written to the President of the United States on July 14, 2016, and among other things it says: ``The House passed a conference report that would provide an additional $1.1 billion in emergency supplemental funding to continue to prepare for, and prevent, Zika both domestically and internationally. It is unfortunate that Democrats have blocked action on this legislation in the Senate.'' Mr. Speaker, they continue to do it today.
This letter--which was signed by the chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman Hal Rogers; the gentleman Thad Cochran, chairman of the Senate Committee on Appropriations; Chairman Tom Cole, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services; Roy Blunt, chairman, Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services; Kay Granger from Fort Worth, Texas, chairwoman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations; Lindsey Graham, chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations--very clearly says: Mr. President, until that block by Senate Democrats is stopped, we give you authorization to reprogram money that would be available. You seem to find lots of money that is available to bring people to this country who might be displaced in other places around the world. Why don't you spend a little bit of money on important issues like the Zika virus?
We are on record. We are waiting for the Senate to move the bill. Mr. Speaker, I want you to know your time that you have allocated today, the precious time of this House, was done today for bills that came to us from ideas from the American people that floated on a bipartisan basis directly up to the Committee on Financial Services, which brought these bills forward. They have been talked about, marked up, and vetted. They are good to go, and I am in full support of not only this rule, but this legislation; and for that reason, I urge my colleagues to continue to support this rule and the underlying bills.
Appropriations Committee Sends Joint House and Senate Letter to the White House Urging Action on Zika Funding
Washington, July 14.--House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers, along with Senate Appropriations Chairman Thad Cochran and other senior members of the House and Senate committees, today sent a joint letter to President Obama urging White House action on Zika funding.
Senate Democrats today again blocked legislation that would immediately fund efforts to prevent and fight the spread of the Zika virus. Chairmen Rogers and Cochran wrote that given the critical need for these funds and absent the funding that was blocked today, the White House should ``aggressively use funds already available to mount a strong defense against the virus.''
The full text of the letter is below: July 14, 2016. President Barack Obama, The White House, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: Your Administration has asked Congress to provide additional resources to prepare for, and prevent, the spread of the Zika virus. We have responded by both supporting the reprioritization of existing resources and passing through our respective chambers legislation that would provide additional Zika response funding.
On February 18, 2016, we called upon your Administration to repurpose available funds to be spent immediately to fight the disease. On April 6, 2016, you did so through the use of existing authorities, repurposing $589 million for Zika response activities. Given the urgency of your request, we were surprised last week when Politico reported the following based on information shared by Administration officials: ``The Obama administration has so far distributed only about one-sixth of the unspent Ebola funding that it diverted to combat the Zika virus.'' This money is available immediately to prepare for and combat Zika, yet is seemingly not being spent.
The House passed a conference report that would provide an additional $1.1 billion in emergency supplemental funding to continue to prepare for, and prevent, Zika both domestically and internationally. It is unfortunate that Democrats have blocked action on this legislation in the Senate. The conference report provides the same amount of funding that every Senate Democrat previously supported. It fully funds vaccine research, and increases funding for mosquito spraying and eradication, Zika surveillance, and advanced development of treatments and diagnostics. The conference agreement provides the same access to health services as your supplemental request, contains no new prohibition on any health service, and expands access to health services in Puerto Rico beyond your initial request.
If Senate Democrats continue to block consideration of Zika legislation, we urge you to aggressively use funds already available to mount a strong defense against the virus. We also note that the fiscal year 2016 appropriations bills allow the Administration access to additional funds. The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services has transfer authority that can be used as an additional source for Zika preparedness. The previous Secretary did not hesitate to use this authority to support the failing Affordable Care Act Exchanges. The Secretary of State also has authority to reprogram funding to provide additional foreign assistance to address the Zika virus outside the United States.
We urge you to use available funding now to ensure our nation is prepared. Sincerely, Rep. Hal Rogers,
Chairman, House Appropriations Committee. Sen. Thad Cochran,
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee. Rep. Tom Cole,
Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services. Sen. Roy Blunt,
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services. Rep. Kay Granger,
Chairwoman, House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations. Sen. Lindsey Graham,
Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 844 Offered by Mr. Polis
At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. 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 fmal passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 1076. ____ The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source