Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 742, the special order of business governing consideration of H.R. 897, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2015, included a prophylactic waiver of points of order against its consideration, and it was described as such in House Report 114- 590. The waiver of all points of order now includes a waiver of clause 9 of rule XXI which requires the chair of each committee of initial referral to disclose a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional Record prior to its consideration. However, it is important to note that one of the two committees of initial referral submitted the required statement and the second committee is expected to submit the required statement prior to the bill's consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise on this coming Memorial Day in memory and in gratitude to all of the magnificent heroes like Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor. The ones who gave that last full measure in the name of freedom for their country and brothers in Arms. On April the 8th 2008, Michael was posthumously presented the Medal of Honor by President Bush at the White House for sacrificing himself by jumping on a grenade on September 29, 2006 for his fellow SEALs. On this Memorial Day let our thoughts and prayers go out to him and his family and all of those who have given their lives throughout the years in the name of freedom. I submit this poem penned in his honor by Albert C. Caswell. That Last Full Measure All in that moment between Life and Death When, who lives or dies no less When, courage comes to crest As comes That Measure That God-like Test That Last Full Measure Just All Until, none lies left As one of America's Best Right between Life and Death When, who lives or dies So all upon us so rests The greatest of all tests As to one's soul expressed When comes That Last Full Measure Of which now so Blesses As when one looks into that Face of Death And so valiantly vanquishes Evil's Quest As When Come's, That Last Full Measure That Golden Test All in that moment which lies As all in ones soul comprised Which, brings such tears to the Angels eyes Up On High All In That Last Full Measure As they watch and cry At this American Treasure At The Greatest Gift of All As how one's Life is Measured To hear that most solemn call Of Love and Devotion, and Sacrifice All in that moment of selflessness as so realized To do what is right To carry that night All in That Last Full Measure All in that fight With your gift The Greatest of All The one that our Lord so Treasure's Is but that ``That Last Full Measure'' A SEAL Of HONOR The One who so endeavored In that Gift Michael you so gave All in that most splendid treasure Michael, the Lives you so saved Perhaps, one day a child will come Who too all of us among Will bless our world to come This one With such gifts of love you've begun A Cure For Cancer For our world's problems finding the answers Or maybe too, as you ``That Last Full Measure'' And from all of this perhaps will come such Treasures From all of this such happiness begun And yet such sadness for all of your love ones That we can not so Measure Take heart, as one day you will all be together again All in Heaven's Sun embracing then Because of you Michael For what you've done And your most magnificent endeavor In what you gave America's Son All in, That Last Full Measure In the moment of truth, how you behaved my son As to our Lord's heart, you've brought such pleasure

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I do respect the gentleman for his right to come and offer under an open rule, in a different bill, his objections to what occurred last night. Last night, the House of Representatives passed the bill. And today, the gentleman is offering a limiting amendment that would turn back that agreement that we made. Mr. Chairman, several days ago, the House Armed Services Committee handled this issue. It was not sneaking something in. It was a straight-up vote. It was a vote that was held in the Armed Services Committee, it passed. The final vote was 60-2. Mr. Chairman, that is a bipartisan vote. That is a vote from people on the committee who viewed that they were not going to let one issue or another get in the way of supporting the men and women of our United States military. They very clearly--all of them on the committee-- understood during this long markup exactly the implications, and they lived with the decision. I am here today to say that the gentleman is fully entitled to do as he is doing, but the vote was held last night. The overwhelming viewpoint was let's support the United States military and let's get this done, not the next day come on the floor with spilled milk on your face and say: I want to go back and I want to relitigate a decision that we made last night with every Member here on the floor.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman. I admire the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, that issue was handled--and the gentleman knows this--in committee. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the gentleman. I am not without an understanding that there are people who do have ideas which override other bigger ideas. I am simply saying to you, Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to what the gentleman is attempting to do here, the next day, in a separate bill, to limit what we did last night, when this body did understand that many people have a strong viewpoint that supports the gentleman, and more people have a viewpoint that is against that. That is not my point. My point is, we need to transcend that as a body. And we did last night. We spoke very clearly. We need to support the men and women of the United States military. And we do not believe this is a stumbling block because we don't view what the gentleman is saying is the critical and key issue. That is why I stand in opposition to what the gentleman is doing. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Objection.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to politely offer a viewpoint. I believe that we do not view that the issue was discrimination. We have the viewpoint that, earlier in the week, we brought forth a bill that passed 40-2 in the Committee on Armed Services, and that bill was brought forth to the Rules Committee, and we held hours and hours and hours and hours of hearing that Republicans and Democrats were not only welcome to attend, but did attend. The debate that we had on the issue was very full and was brought forth not only at the Rules Committee, but also on this floor. A decision therein was made. There was an opportunity for our Members to vote, and that is exactly what they did. And I am sure the gentleman would want every single Member to vote and have time to think about that vote until the time that the vote closed, and that is exactly what happened. So a characterization that this was discrimination would not be, in my opinion, fair or correct, from our perspective. And I appreciate the gentleman allowing me a chance to amplify that every Member of this body is entitled to their vote, and every Member of this body, without questioning, in my opinion, that vote, should be afforded that opportunity. So I stand on behalf of Republicans to say that we followed processes; we are following procedures; and we are following the opportunity for a Member of Congress to vote as they choose, and try not to impugn or to test that with applying the word ``discrimination,'' which I feel is not accurate under our intent. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. Thank you very much. First of all, let me state this: I am a Republican. We do not discriminate. We attempt to follow the law, and the gentleman knows that. We make laws, and those laws can be subject to interpretations of what is and what is not, but we follow the law, and the gentleman knows that. And we follow the law, and my party follows the law. Secondly, the decision had previously been made the night before. We were not trying to do that today. It was, once again, allowed under the rules because the gentleman accurately--whether it is appropriate or not, that is up to him--brought forth, under an open rule, a limiting amendment. But we had decided this the night before. And when people recognized what had happened, that this was a vote that had happened the night before, off of a committee vote out of the Committee on Armed Services that was 40-2, there were people who then recognized what they were doing. It is not unusual to have people vote and then change their vote. I have done that also. But the rules were followed despite, perhaps, different procedural ways in which a person is in the Chair. So I will tell you, I respect the gentleman, and you know me well.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would not stand up here if I were for fear of one second of not being able to understand you and you understand me. I understand you.

Mr. SESSIONS. And I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will concur that I, in fact, did offer in the bill a self-executed portion. Not trying to take advantage of the gentleman, it had nothing to do with the draft. So I will agree that I did take a piece. And to save this body, because a number of people who did vote for it in committee--which became a voice vote--did wish to change their opinion. But it had nothing to do with the draft, sir.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would ask an indulgence. It had nothing to do with discrimination. It had to do with a new policy. And it is true that I did rule and put a self-executing rule in that did answer the question about the desire of the committee to handle this issue, and I did it accordingly. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I want to take time to recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, representing the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks) for their service not only to this conference, but also to the issues and the ideas that are being brought forth. The gentlewoman from Indiana has served our Nation as a United States attorney in Indiana. She has been on the front line of battles, albeit a few years ago, but the front line of battles that the American people face, how we protect the American public from all sorts of things that get in our way as families and communities. But in this case today, she is serving as a Member of Congress firsthand to fight a problem with opioids. Opioids are a synthetic heroin, Mr. Chairman, and synthetic heroin is a national problem. It is a national problem and one which this Congress is undertaking. We are following up today on the United States Senate bill and this bill that came through regular order in the House of Representatives under two primary committees. The Judiciary Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee have addressed bills that are being debated today that will be passed, will be done in a bipartisan way, and will bring the best ideas of the House of Representatives to the plate. With that in mind, that is what I stand for today, sir, to do. I join in, as my colleague from Vermont has done, in adding to this interagency task force with an amendment that I brought forth that I would ask us to consider. I will offer this amendment to ensure that the existing best practices of State and local governments, as well as the private sector, are specifically considered as the task force which was established by H.R. 4641 conducts their business. Mr. Chairman, the opportunity for us to understand the amendment process means that not only I, but also other Members of this body, bring forth ideas that we think are the best ways to combat this problem. I believe in State and local governments. I believe in the private sector. I think they are the essence of, really, where the rubber meets the road on the solution of problems, not to kick around ideas and to find something that doesn't work, but to kick around ideas that do work. Local communities, local governments, and the private sector collaborate back home daily. They do this in Dallas, Texas, which is my home, which I represent, and we have something that is called the Dallas Area Drug Prevention Partnership. It was established in 2007, and it represents what I believe is the best collaborative effort between local communities focusing on preventing drug abuse. A few years ago, Dallas, Texas, the epicenter of something that was a heroin epidemic, was looking at a marketing effort by Mexican drug dealers with something that was called cheese. Cheese was a marketing effort, but it was heroin, and it was being packaged and sold as cheese. In fact, it caused the death of some 25 people in Dallas, Texas, very quickly before law enforcement recognized what the problem was. Law enforcement worked with community leaders, church leaders, religious leaders, Boy Scout troops, Girl Scout troops, youth groups, YMCAs, and we got a handle on what the problem was. But it was not solved by the Federal Government. It was not done just by an interagency departmental group of people in Washington, D.C. It was solved with Washington, D.C., and with people back home who saw the problem firsthand, who took responsibility for the problem firsthand. In this case, what we are trying to say is we are dealing with a nationwide epidemic, a nationwide epidemic which we have spoken very plainly about today that is one that is caused through opioid use and then the transition to heroin at some point in a person's life. It is creating thousands of deaths across our country. Something must be done. But the something to be done is a collaborative effort between the Federal Government, interagency responsibility up in Washington and other places back home, but with State and local organizations and with private sector organizations that really will be not just the boots on the ground, but many times with the best expertise about the best way to do it in the best place. Mr. Chairman, I bring forth this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, just a polite dialogue. Do you believe in any way, because we have not moved a bill, that the Federal Government is stopping and waiting and doing nothing on this issue?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 701 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying legislation, which will benefit small innovative companies and startups by ensuring that they have access to the necessary capital to succeed, grow, and create jobs in their companies. But I also stand up today to make sure that we are here for a marketplace that is fair and equitable to all Americans, regardless of whether they work for a small company or a large company, whether they are a big-time investor or whether they are a person who is looking at the marketplace, perhaps, with ideas and opportunities. Last night, the Rules Committee met and reported a structured rule for H.R. 4498, the Helping Angels Lead Our Startups, or the HALOS, Act. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the Financial Services Committee. I also want to point out that the Rules Committee asked all of our Members of this body to submit their ideas and amendments. As a result, this resolution makes in order all of the amendments that were submitted. That is important because what this Rules Committee is attempting to accomplish is to ask all of the Members for their feedback about how to make bills better; and in this case, when something was germane, it was made in order. The Securities and Exchange Commission has a three-pronged statutory mission in overseeing U.S. capital markets: to protect investors; to maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and to facilitate capital formation. Unfortunately, the SEC historically has ignored its mandate to facilitate capital formation in the absence of congressionally mandated rulemakings. The SEC's inability to fulfill its statutory mandate is ultimately to the detriment of entrepreneurs, smaller companies, and startup ventures, such as Teladoc, the Nation's first and largest telehealth platform, which had it not received startup investment, may not have existed at all. To remedy the SEC's inaction on capital formation, my colleagues and I passed the bipartisan Jumpstart Our Business Startups, or JOBS Act, which was signed into law on April 5, 2012. The recognition that we had problems in the marketplace for smaller companies and smaller groups of people to bring their ideas to the marketplace was a huge impediment based upon the SEC, and that is why this JOBS Act was created. Although startups and small businesses are at the forefront of technological innovation and job creation, they often still face significant and unnecessary obstacles in obtaining funding in the capital markets. The JOBS Act lifted the burden of certain securities regulations to help small companies obtain access to these important markets, but we are back at the table again. Unfortunately, when the SEC promulgated rules to implement the JOBS Act, it classified events held by angel investors as general solicitations, and thus, they were subject to accredited investor mandates, yet another example of the Federal Government's creating unnecessary red tape, stifling innovation, and quite honestly, making it hard for smaller, single entrepreneurs to participate in a worldwide marketplace. This new classification is burdensome and it jeopardizes educational and economic development for events like demo days. Demo days are held in marketplaces all across our country. It is an opportunity for not just investors, but for general communities to come, primarily in the tech field, and learn about the newest startups as they are occurring. When startups interact with angel investors and venture capitalists, it means that best ideas can then be brought forward to create more jobs, investment, and can move forward so an idea that perhaps was on somebody's blackboard goes directly to the marketplace. Demo days have been an important part of the entrepreneurial financing process for decades--nothing new--often with lead sponsorships by Federal, State, and local governments, which are bringing these best ideas into play for the marketplace to see not only about the idea, but for it to become a reality in an economic development format. To be clear, demo days have existed long before the passage of the JOBS Act and have created collaborative and engaging educational environments that have brought together startups, leading-edge thought leaders, young programmers, people who are looking to network, and, I think, an overall more diverse network of individuals that is looking to exchange ideas. These are the kind of educational incubators that our country needs more of, not less of. We are here today because the SEC developed rules that would change demo days greatly--and other activities like this--to the detriment of the marketplace, yes, but, more importantly, to the detriment of small business and entrepreneurs. To address the SEC's burdensome rule, Congressman Steve Chabot from Ohio, the chairman of the Committee on Small Business, introduced H.R. 4498, the Helping Angels Lead Our Startups Act. This legislation defines an ``angel investor group'' and clarifies that the Securities Act's general solicitation limitations do not apply to a presentation, communication, or event conducted on behalf of an issuer at an event that is sponsored by certain organizations; where any advertising for the event does not reference any specific offering of securities by the issuer; or where no specific information regarding an offering of securities by the issuer is communicated to or distributed by or on behalf of the issuer. What does this mean? This means that these demo days that are regularly held across the country are opportunities whereby a presenter of an idea or a person who represents that idea might bring forward those ideas, many times to hear about a collaborative basis, where there may be someone who recognizes he could add on to that idea or be a part of that idea or work with that idea or be a programmer for that idea or to host or to sponsor something that would enable that idea to get further down the road. What the SEC did is throw a wet blanket across it and said: You can't do these. We are trying to segment that out and say: For the purpose of a demo day, when it does not relate to a specific offer or ask for funding, it still can take place. This is not a narrow interpretation. The intent is to understand that the purpose of a demo day should be to get ideas further down the road so they can gain not only the opportunity for investment, but so they can make their ideas even better. H.R. 4498 provides essential protections for States, municipalities, trade associations, and other venues that facilitate such meetings between investors and fund managers. It is important for Congress to act. Just because we are not aware of how marketplaces work does not mean we should wait for the Federal Government to regulate them and then find out, whoops, they made a mistake. Members of Congress need to be active to understand that the SEC should live up to its statutes, that it should live up to its mission statement, and that it should not stifle innovation, but, rather, allow for the creative opportunity and development of these issues and ideas to come forth in order to better not only employment and ideas, but, more specifically, employment within the United States so consumers will then have better options over time. To ensure that angel investors play an active role in startups is why we are here today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) bringing up these issues. We try and talk about these issues up at the Rules Committee. There is always a wide-ranging list of not only issues and ideas, but I certainly know that, as we talk about these, we are all after action on the floor. I don't know the exact answer, but I believe, as it relates to the problem with the Zika virus, that we are dealing with some $600 million. I note that Mrs. Lowey, the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, has come on the floor and I am subject to being corrected by her. But it is my understanding that right now, in an account that would be allowed to be exchanged, some $600 million is left over in that fund that is unspent from the Ebola crisis and that negotiations between our appropriators, the CDC, and other Federal agencies have said: We do recognize from the House perspective that this is a very, very serious issue. We acknowledge that. I have acknowledged that up at the Rules Committee. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has several times, in the spirit that I appreciated and that was very complimentary to a proper answer, brought this issue up, that this is what he is looking at, that it is an issue in our country. The responses that I continue to, I believe, receive back is that our appropriators, on a very professional basis, have allowed use of the funds to be used for that issue. So I would like to say to the gentleman from Massachusetts that I do understand his concerns and, really, Mr. McGovern, I appreciate it. I appreciate you, Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Polis, and Judge Hastings bringing these issues up. But we try and go and clarify what I think are proper or sustainable answers to your ideas. The ideas about other pieces of legislation we will get to. Where there are emergencies, I do agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I do not think an AUMF, which is a discussion about military use of force, is necessarily in line right now, but I know that Republicans are preparing that. I know that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) could bring his effort forward and will at the appropriate time for his ideas. They will all fit. Today, however, what we are here for is something that has been in line for some period of time that is a major issue. The gentleman very appropriately said the last time we brought forth legislation that it created $71 billion worth of entrepreneurial funding, funding that helps our country's research and development, new ideas in medicine, new ideas in communication, new ideas that employ people, money to the marketplace. That is why we are here today. We think this is just as powerful. After we passed the JOBS Act, the SEC got most of it right, not all of it right, and we are trying to politely--this is the way we do things in a democracy. We try and work with government agencies to say: You got some of it right, but congressional intent needs to be done a little bit further. Will it bring $71 billion to the marketplace? I don't know. Will it mean that a brighter future exists for innovation, job creation, and investment that keeps America's leading edge as opposed to ideas going somewhere else around the world? Yes. I would argue that Speaker Paul Ryan is aware of all the issues that need to be debated. Today we feel like jobs and job creation and perhaps an opportunity to stimulate, whether it is $71 million or $71 billion worth of new stimulating activity for new ideas, is important. That is why we are here today. That is why people took a number, got in line, and developed their activity. Steve Chabot measured twice, brought his legislation here, and understands what it is about. I would also say, as Mr. McGovern I believe politely alluded to, this is a good idea because it does not say we will only form these opportunities in Republican districts, but we will form them in districts all over the country. It is a good, bipartisan piece of legislation that helps smaller, less sophisticated people. It helps the marketplace. I think it is important. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am delighted that the gentlewoman from New York, who is a regular visitor to the Rules Committee and who really, I believe, adequately and fairly not only represents the needs of this Nation, but really argues many times on behalf of things that are common sense--I want to thank her for being here today. Mr. Speaker, this is not an argument at all about the Zika virus, about Ebola. The Ebola circumstance to the United States in the United States actually occurred first in Dallas, Texas, within the congressional district that I am so lucky to represent. It did constitute not only an immediate threat and danger to not only that hospital in Dallas, Texas, but, really, all across our country, and it evoked a scare. It did. Well, we have that same type of circumstance today. That is why, in retouching base with our Appropriations Committee, I now can speak what I believe is from them directly as opposed to what I thought I heard, and that is that the appropriators have said that immediate funding needs for Zika should be provided from unobligated funds that are already available, which would then be backfilled in 17 appropriations bills as needed, which means that there still is money that the approval, the authorization, has been given. Instead of us delaying through our process here, we have said that we concur this is of immediate nature. Here is a bucket of money. Here is a bucket of money. As an example, there are some $400 million that is available that was a part of the Ebola funding that is unobligated and is intended to be spent in future years. There is money available to meet the immediate need. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, in working with Speaker Ryan, has made sure that the money is available, can be used for this need, and Republicans agree it is the right thing to do. I do appreciate Mrs. Lowey coming down. I do appreciate the gentlemen, Judge Hastings and Mr. McGovern, seeking these questions. Mr. Speaker, we are trying to make sure that this body understands the money is available. It is there to be used properly, as with any other taxpayer money, but that it may be used for this purpose. Quite honestly, I am very proud of what we are doing to match up the needs of this Nation and its great people.