Supporting America's Innovators Act of 2017

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. 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.

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. 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

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.

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

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 2 minutes.

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. 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

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, I call up the bill (H.R. 1431) to amend the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to provide for Scientific Advisory Board member qualifications, public participation, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1431.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank Chairman Smith and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Biggs for their hard work on this important piece of legislation. I also thank my good friend, Representative

Peterson for, yet again, working--helping, I should say--to make this bill a bipartisan effort. I appreciate his willingness to sponsor this bill with me.

I had the opportunity to speak in favor of this legislation when it passed this House with bipartisan support in the 114th Congress. Now, I come to the floor yet again to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this important reform. The SAB Reform Act was a good bill then, and it is a good bill now. This is a policy that is built on the values we should uphold regardless of which side of the political aisle we are on or who happens to be the President.

H.R. 1431, the Science Advisory Board Reform Act, ensures the best experts are free to undertake a balanced and open review of regulatory science. The Board was established to provide scientific advice to the EPA and Congress, and to review the quality and relevance of science EPA uses for regulations. But in recent years, shortcomings with the process have arisen. Opportunities for public participation have been limited, potential conflicts of interest have gone unchecked, and the ability of the Board to speak independently has been curtailed.

If the administration undermines the Board's independence or prevents it from providing advice to Congress, the valuable advice these experts can provide is wasted.

Despite the existing requirement that the EPA's advisory panels be fairly balanced in terms of point of view represented, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee has identified a number of past problems that have undermined the panel's credibility and work product. These include a number of advisory members who received money from the EPA. At the very least, this could create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Some of the panelists have taken public and even political positions on issues they are advising about. For example, a lead reviewer of the EPA's hydraulic fracking study published an anti-fracking article titled, ``Regulate, Baby, Regulate.'' Now, this clearly is not an objective viewpoint, and should be publicly disclosed.

Public participation is limited during most board meetings. Interested parties have almost no ability to comment on the scope of the work, and meeting records are often incomplete and hard to obtain.

This bill is both pro-science, and pro-sound science. This bill is founded upon recommendations for reform outlined by the National Academy of Sciences, and the EPA's Peer Review Handbook. This bill ensures that the Board is balanced, transparent, and independent, all of which will help prevent the SAB from being manipulated by any group.

H.R. 1431 makes sound science the driving force of the Board, no matter who is the chief executive officer of our government.

Perhaps most importantly, this bill seeks to increase public participation that benefits all stakeholders. Currently, valuable opportunities for diverse perspectives are limited. The Federal Government does not have a monopoly on the truth. Ask your constituents back home if they know that.

The public has important expertise that can't afford to be ignored in a democracy. State, local, tribal, and private sectors have a long history of qualified scientific experts. Their contributions should be taken seriously.

Unfortunately, the history of the SAB shows that private sector representation is often lacking or simply nonexistent. Instead, in the past, EPA has picked the Board, ignoring the knowledge, experience, and contributions of those experts. This bill ensures that qualified experts are not excluded simply due to their affiliation. This will add value and credibility to future Board reviews.

Mr. Peterson and I recognize the important role science should play in our policy debates and provides safeguards to give the public confidence in science. It restores the independent Science Advisory Board as a defender of scientific integrity.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, a fellow who has worked very diligently on the committee for many years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), a member of the Environment Subcommittee of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I include in the Record the following letters: a letter of support from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, a letter of support from the American Chemistry Council, a letter

of support from the National Cotton Council of America, another letter of support from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, a letter of support from the Independent Petroleum Association of America, a letter of support from the CO2 Coalition, and a letter of support from the Cato Institute.

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States of America,

Washington, DC, March 29, 2017.

To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The

U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the ``Honest and Open New

EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act of 2017'' and the ``EPA

Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017.'' These bills

would improve the transparency and reliability of scientific

and technical information that Federal agencies rely heavily

upon to support new regulatory actions.

The HONEST Act is designed to ensure that the studies and

data Federal agencies cite when they write new regulations,

standards, guidance, assessments of risk--or take other

regulatory action--are clearly identified and available for

public review. Additionally, information must be sufficiently

transparent to allow study findings to be reproduced and

validated. This is a critical safeguard to assure the public

that the data Federal agencies rely on is scientifically

sound, unbiased, and reliable.

The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 would

help ensure that the Science Advisory Board (SAB), which

directly counsels the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) on key scientific and technical issues, is unbiased and

transparent in performing its duties. The bill would

establish requirements that SAB members are qualified

experts, that conflicts of interest and sources of bias are

disclosed, that the views of members--including dissenting

members--are available to the public, and that the public has

the opportunity to participate in the advisory activities of

the Board and view EPA's responses. Because EPA relies on SAB

reviews and studies to support new regulations, standards,

guidance, assessments of risk, and other actions, the actions

of the SAB must be transparent and accountable. This is a

critical safeguard to assure the public that the data Federal

agencies rely on is scientifically sound and unbiased.

The HONEST Act and the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform

Act would improve the transparency and trustworthiness of

scientific and technical reviews and information that

agencies, including EPA, rely on to justify regulatory

actions that can significantly affect society. The American

public must have confidence that the scientific and technical

data driving regulatory action can be trusted. Accordingly,

the Chamber supports these important bills.

Sincerely,

Neil L. Bradley,

Senior Vice President & Chief Policy

Officer, Government Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I would note to the body, part of the challenge that we face here today on this bill is like so many challenges we face as Members of Congress: How do you avoid the short- term perspective? How do you take the long view? How do you set into motion things that, while they might not, perhaps, give us the great advantage in the short-term sense that either side of the room would want, in the long-term, they are in the best interest of the body?

I would remind my colleagues, the Scientific Advisory Board is appointed by the EPA; the EPA is managed by the Director; the Director is appointed by the President of the United States. If you believe that the work product, if you believe that the rules that have been generated by this in recent years reflect your perspective, I understand that, but nothing is ever static.

We have recently had a change of administration. We have a change of direction in the leadership of the EPA. That will be reflected in all the appointments and the actions of the EPA.

I implore my colleagues, we need to work in the perspective of what is in the long-term interest; and that long-term interest is providing scientific review at the SAB that our fellow citizens have confidence in and that will generate good rules and regulations when they have to be created.

Following this course of action advocated in H.R. 1431 will not make my most conservative constituents happy because they want to duplicate what they believe my most liberal constituents have advocated for years, but our goal here is not to empower one or the other side in these perspectives to force their will upon the country. Our responsibility with the SAB is to create a process where we can have confidence in the results and where, when appropriate, the end resulting regulations, the rules that come from it, will be in the best long-term interest of the Nation as a whole.

I know there are requirements in here that, if you have taken money as a scientist to do a research project from the EPA, you have to cool off for 3 years. But what is wrong with allowing a little separation between the people who take money to do the studies and then become the judges of other studies in the knowledge that perhaps the people who have done the studies will judge their studies? What is wrong with that?

And the public disclosure about allowing people with knowledge and expertise to participate, too, if they have

a conflict through these disclosures, we will know. I would hope that whoever leads the EPA on whatever day would act in a responsible fashion.

I just want, through this bill, to change the system so that the perception is out there that the SAB and the scientific process and the rulemaking that comes from it at EPA are being gained by one perspective or the other because that is in no one's best interest.

I know we live in tough times and challenging times to legislate. I think my colleagues know, in the legislation I have worked on before, that I have always worked across the aisle. I have always worked with every perspective within this body. I have always tried to take that long-ball perspective. I know it is a challenging time, but think about that as we continue this well-meaning, good-spirited, very focused debate.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), the former chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology's Subcommittee on Environment.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the second set of letters which I referred to earlier.

National Association of

Home Builders,

Washington, DC, March 8, 2017.

Hon. Lamar Smith,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: On behalf of the 140,000 members of

the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), I am

writing to express NAHB's strong support for the Honest and

Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 and the EPA

Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017. These bills would

ensure an open and honest scientific process by allowing the

public access to the science that underpins regulations

developed by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and

ensuring that scientists advising the EPA on regulatory

decisions are not the same scientists receiving EPA grants.

It is important for the EPA to use sound science in order

to support their rulemakings. Far too often, the EPA relies

on science that lacks transparency and reliability to

buttress their rulemakings. This is a consequence of the EPA

conducting their scientific review of rulemakings behind

closed doors. The EPA frequently ignores scientific integrity

by limiting public participation, excluding state and private

sector expertise, and pushing a specific agenda by appointing

scientists who are biased. In some cases, scientists that

have been appointed to review proposed regulations have

received EPA grants which the EPA disregards as a conflict of

interest.

The EPA should not be able to create costly regulations

without being transparent, fair and open to public input when

considering the science behind a rulemaking. However, the EPA

has sacrificed the integrity of the rulemaking process by

using biased science to push their agenda. It is important to

address these shortcomings so that future rules can be

transparent and honest.

For these reasons, NAHB urges the House Science, Space and

Technology Committee to support the Honest and Open New EPA

Science Treatment Act of 2017 and the EPA Science Advisory

Board Reform Act of 2017, in order to bring transparency and

integrity to the regulatory process.

Thank you for giving consideration to our views.

Sincerely,

James W. Tobin III,

Executive Vice President & Chief Lobbyist, Government

Affairs and Communications Group.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate to my colleagues, this is a situation where the goal really is not to empower one perspective or one faction over another. The goal, ultimately, of this bill--and, yes, this did come out of the inspector general's report, the initial work and effort. The goal of the bill is to add transparency, accountability. The goal of the bill is to increase the American people's confidence in the work product that is then used by the EPA to craft the rules and regulations that impact every life in this country on a daily basis.

Whatever your perspective may be, remember, the pendulum in this great Nation, when it comes to the executive branch, in my time, every 8 years, has swung back and forth. Just because at the present moment or the past moment you think you got your perspective's way, or if perhaps you think with the pendulum swing now you will get your perspective's way, that is not what the focus should be here.

I would also remind my colleagues, in my 23 years, I have served in the minority soon to be for 4\1/2\ years. But the other 18\1/2\ years, I have served in the majority. I have served in the majority. So when I step up to you and say we can do better, we can enhance the quality of information, we can do it in a way that the American people have more confidence in ultimately what goes on, and we can do it in a way that makes it more difficult for anyone to hijack the process, I say that sincerely.

There is nothing wrong with full disclosure for everyone who can add to the process, who should be available for consideration. There is nothing wrong with a financial cooling-off between benefiting from the studies and analyzing someone else's studies. There is nothing wrong with this.

But if you stay with the status quo, this Board and this Agency are in change. Get ready for 8 years of a dramatically different way of doing things.

Now, maybe you are so confident that the pendulum will swing back again that you are willing to accept that. But as for me, I want to stay between the lines. I want to focus in ways that, for the long term, represent the best interests of this great country.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1431. I ask my colleagues to think about 10 or 20 years down the road. I ask my colleagues to put the long-term best interests of their constituents first.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I claim the time in opposition to the motion, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I look at this language--and I am a farmer by trade; I am not an attorney; I will confess that--but the phrase ``or other entity'' seems to be a very broad concept. How will that affect people who work for research foundations at institutions of higher education? How will that affect entities, people who are part of so- called think tanks in places like Washington, D.C.? I personally believe the language is intended more to simply turn the bill inside out.

On that basis, I would ask my colleagues to reject the motion to recommit with instructions and to pass the underlying bill.

But I go one step further, and I offer this in the most sincerest of ways: if you look at the discussion today and if you look at the discussion that has gone on for some time on these issues, it is almost as though there are those with certain perspectives who are trying to force their will--their perspective of what is right and wrong scientifically or economically or socially--on the rest of the country, on the rest of us, and, for that matter, on the rest of the world.

That is why I am the author of this bill. No one entity should have the power by manipulating the bureaucratic process or the rulemaking process to enforce their definitions of everything on the rest of us. We have both the right and the responsibility to judge this information and to make decisions about what is in our enlightened self-interest, as the old economist would say, or in the best interest of the country or of society as a whole.

That is why I want all of us--the great American people--to have access and some certainty about the people and the process that are driving everything in our world.

Reject the motion, pass the bill, create greater transparency, incorporate more input, and when it is necessary to have rules and regulations, generate good rules and regulations so that we all have a chance to prosper and to live up to our potential in this country. Don't let the tyranny of the idealistic--whatever perspective they may have--drive us all into despair and destruction.

With that, I respectfully ask my colleagues to reject this motion and pass the underlying bill.

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1219, the Supporting America's Innovators Act, is legislation that certainly shows that sometimes we can get together and we can support a good idea. This act is such a thing. It shows how well we can work together to craft bipartisan solutions that support our Nation's innovators and the jobs that they create.

Last Congress, Mr. McHenry came to me with a problem: Sophisticated angel investors who fund promising startup businesses want to pool their money together, but the law effectively caps them at 100 investors per fund. If more than 100 people want to invest, the fund is forced to exclude some of them from the deal to avoid registration and regulation as an ``investment company'' under the securities laws. That means investors willing to commit capital are being turned away and startups are losing out on important early-stage funding.

Because of Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez and Mr. Patrick McHenry working together, working out any concerns that had been identified on either side of the aisle, we now, today, have a piece of legislation, a bill, that would narrowly increase the investor limitation from 100 to 250 persons for certain venture capital funds, provided that the fund does not have more than $10 million in total investor capital.

This type of fund structure is used today by AngelList, an angel investing platform that connects investors meeting certain income and asset thresholds with one another so they can pool their money into special-purpose funds which then invest them in a particular startup company. Importantly, both the companies and the investors benefit from this structure.

Compared with making hundreds of smaller direct investments, a company, for example, only has as a single point of contact, the angel fund advised by a fiduciary, rather than hundreds of investors who must all individually approve corporate actions such as mergers and acquisitions and expanding ownership.

Investors also like this structure because they can delegate monitoring the startups they invest in to the investment adviser to the fund. Such monitoring may be significant, considering that investors, recognizing that most early-stage companies fail, typically diversify their investments among 30 to 80 companies.

H.R. 1219 reasonably promotes this fund structure for startup investments by providing a narrowly tailored exemption for certain venture capital funds which must invest at least 80 percent of their funds in small businesses. Under the bill, the venture capital funds must have no more than 250 investors and no more than $10 million in investor capital, ensuring that they are small enough that investors are able to monitor and manage their investments.

The bill's limits also ensure that we aren't creating a loophole for other investment companies, like mutual funds, to avoid regulation; nor are we providing relief to other private funds, like hedge funds or private equity funds, that have very little restriction and investor protection.

Mr. Speaker, too often Congress seeks to help small businesses by repealing sensible guardrails and rules of the road with little to no thought of the impact on investors or market integrity. This is a mistake since it is investors that provide the money necessary for small businesses to grow. If investors don't trust the markets to operate fairly, they will decline to invest or raise costs on the very businesses we want to help. H.R. 1219 is different and reflects a measured, bipartisan approach to promoting our Nation's startups and the investors who take a chance on them.

I thank Mr. McHenry and Ms. Velazquez for their leadership on this bill. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee's Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Securities, and Investments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have received tremendous support for this legislation, and we are extremely hopeful that we will be able to come together on both sides of the aisle and continue to give support to our small businesses. As a matter of fact, we have a lot of those in the Congress of the United States--a lot of Members, rather--who talk about supporting small businesses, but we don't often see real legislation that can do that. This is such legislation, and I cannot thank Ms. Velazquez and Mr. McHenry enough for the way that they have worked on this legislation together.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record some of the letters of support that we have received from the Center for American Entrepreneurship, the Internet Association, TechNet, Angel Capital Association, and AngelList.

Center for

American Entrepreneurship,

April 25, 2016.

Hon. Jeb Hensarling,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Maxine Waters,

Ranking Member, Committee on Financial Services, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Hensarling and Ranking Member Waters: On

behalf of the Center for American Entrepreneurship, I write

today to express our strong support for legislation offered

by Rep. Patrick McHenry: H.R. 4854, the ``Supporting

America's Innovators Act of 2016,'' and H.R. 4855, the ``Fix

Crowdfunding Act of 2016.'' Both bills will significantly

enhance American entrepreneurs' access to the capital they

need to launch and grow new businesses and, in doing so,

accelerate economic growth and job creation.

CAE is a nonpartisan policy and advocacy organization whose

mission is to engage policymakers in Washington and across

the nation regarding the critical importance of entrepreneurs

and start-ups to innovation, economic growth, and job

creation, and to pursue a comprehensive policy agenda

intended to significantly enhance the circumstances for new

business formation, survival, and growth.

As you may know, recent research has demonstrated that

start-ups are disproportionately responsible for the

innovations that drive economic growth and account for

virtually all net new job creation. Alarmingly, recent

research has also demonstrated that, despite impressive

strength in certain cities around the country, rates of new

business formation in America have been declining for 30

years, and the decline is occurring in all 50 states, in all

but a handful of the 360 metro areas examined, and across a

broad range of industry sectors, including high-technology.

Given the importance of thriving entrepreneurship to

innovation, economic growth, and job creation, such

circumstances amount to nothing less than a national

emergency.

When asked or surveyed, entrepreneurs across the country

report that access to sufficient capital on affordable terms

remains among their principal challenges. The legalization of

crowdfunding by way of the Jumpstart Our Business Start-ups

(JOBS) Act in 2012 was a major step forward in meaningfully

enhancing innovators' access to investment capital. But

further reforms are necessary to realize the Act's full

potential to promote entrepreneurship, growth, greater

opportunity, and job creation.

H.R. 4854, the ``Supporting America's Innovators Act''

would amend an exemption

under the Investment Company Act of 1940 by increasing the

investor limitation from 100 to 500 persons for qualifying

venture capital funds that purchase no more than $10 million

in securities in any one issuer, adjusted for inflation.

Lifting the current arbitrary cap would not only increase

entrepreneurs' access to additional investors, but will

protect investors through a greater diversification of risk.

H.R. 4855, the ``Fix Crowdfunding Act'' would amend the

crowdfunding aspects of the JOBS Act in a number of important

ways:

Raising the annual issuance amount from $1 million to $5

million;

Exempting the beneficial owners of crowdfunding securities

from counting towards the Exchange Act 12(g) requirement

triggering public reporting;

Exempting special purpose vehicles (SPVs) created for the

purpose of investing in a single issuer of crowdfunding

securities from registration as investment companies under

the Investment Company Act, and permitting SPVs considered as

``venture capital funds'' to offer crowdfunding securities;

Revising the investment cap so that investors earning

$100,000 or less may invest up to 5 percent of their annual

income or net worth, and investors earning more than $100,000

to invest up to 10 percent of their annual income or net

worth;

Defining the requirements for a crowdfunding intermediary

to disqualify an issuer when the intermediary, through a

background check or other means, determines that the issuer

knowingly made untrue statements or omissions related to

material facts, or engaged in fraud;

Defining a crowdfunding intermediary's potential liability

to include only instances when the intermediary knowingly

makes untrue statements or omissions related to material

facts or knowingly engages in fraud;

Permitting an issuer to ``test the waters'' by soliciting

non-binding commitments of interest from potential investors

without filing information with the SEC, provided that no

funds are accepted by the issuer and any material changes

that occur between the solicitation and the offer are

highlighted to potential investors; and,

Providing a 5-year grace period for portals to make a good-

faith effort to comply with all crowdfunding rules, and

prohibits the SEC from bringing any enforcement actions

during that period.

Both bills help strike a more appropriate balance between

the twin priorities of capital formation and investor

protection. In doing so, these reforms significantly enhance

the prospects for new business formation, survival, and

growth at a time when faster economic growth is necessary to

address challenges such as underemployment, stagnant middle-

class wages, the income and wealth gaps, and alarmingly high

levels of poverty and dependence.

CAE commends you for your leadership to promote American

entrepreneurship and innovation and greatly appreciates your

thoughtful consideration of the reforms in H.R. 4854 and H.R.

4855. We look forward to continuing to work with you, the

bills' sponsors, and the Committee's distinguished members on

behalf of American entrepreneurs and start-ups.

Sincerely,

Robert E. Litan,

Chairman, Center for American

Entrepreneurship.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that, for the first time this Congress, committee Republicans have brought to the House floor a bill that has broad bipartisan support. Oftentimes, the opposite side of the aisle on our committee take a partisan approach to legislation and sometimes do not express a lot of interest in the views of the opposite side of the aisle or the millions of Americans whom they represent. However, in contrast, this bill before us today is the product of thoughtful, bipartisan compromise and will help startup companies and their investors equally. Madam Speaker, this is how laws should be made.

Indeed, last Congress, Mr. McHenry and I worked together to promote liquidity in the secondary market for startup company stock by creating a clearer path for startup investors to resell their stock. The result of our bipartisan efforts was the Reforming Access for Investments in Startup Enterprises Act, which became law in 2015, along with seven other bipartisan, financial services bills included in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act.

Going forward, I hope that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle will remember what we can achieve when we work together. So, again, I thank both Mr. McHenry for reaching across the aisle and Ms. Velazquez for working with me on H.R. 1219, the Supporting America's Innovators Act of 2017. I urge all of my colleagues to join me and vote ``yes.''

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1431, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017. Like the bill we considered yesterday, the so- called HONEST Act, H.R. 1431 is designed to harm the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to use science to make informed decisions.

The bill before us today claims to reform the EPA's Science Advisory Board. And let's talk about what these reforms would mean.

First, the bill establishes a series of roadblocks to prevent independent academic scientists from serving on the Board. It accomplishes this by turning the term ``conflict of interest'' on its head by excluding scientists who have done the most relevant research on the topic being considered by the Board. The bill also prohibits Science Advisory Board members from obtaining extramural research grants for 3 years after their service on the Board, which would be a major disincentive for scientists to serve on the panel.

At the same time that this bill makes it much more difficult for academic researchers to serve on the Science Advisory Board, the bill also makes it much easier for corporate interests to serve. This is accomplished by gutting actual financial conflict-of-interest restrictions against industry representatives. Under this legislation, those industry representatives would simply have to disclose their financial conflicts, and they could serve on panels directly related to their corporate interests.

Finally, H.R. 1431 imposes exhaustive and duplicative notice-and- comment requirements on the Science Advisory Board. I say these requirements are exhaustive because, in addition to being an open-ended process, the Board would also have to respond in writing to any and all significant comments. In fact, I find it hard to believe that the advisory process created by this bill could ever be completed.

Of course, that is the real purpose of this provision. It is designed to throw sand in the gears of the Science Advisory Board process, and prevent board members from ever rendering their expert advice.

These additions are totally unnecessary. The Science Advisory Board already has statutorily mandated notice-and-comment obligations, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act already applies to their activities.

So if this bill passes, what would happen?

As an example, I will turn to a case study from the early 1990s. At that time, the EPA was forming a Scientific Advisory Panel to review evidence of harm from secondhand tobacco smoke. Thanks to internal tobacco industry documents that have been made public, we now know that Big Tobacco made a concerted effort to stack the Scientific Advisory Panel with tobacco industry hacks.

We take it for granted now that tobacco smoke is dangerous, but at that time, in the early nineties, Big Tobacco had succeeded in muddying the scientific waters around this issue by investing tens of millions of dollars in a coordinated attempt to defraud the American people.

If H.R. 1431 had been in effect back then, Big Tobacco likely would have succeeded in co-opting the Science Advisory Board.

What would the effects have been on public health to have had the EPA's science review body controlled by tobacco interests?

That is why a number of public health and environmental interest groups have come out against H.R. 1431. In a letter penned by the American Lung Association, the American Public Health Association, and several other health groups, the effects of H.R. 1431 are summed up like this:

``In short, EPA's Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit the voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to respond to important questions, and increase the influence of industry in shaping EPA policy. This is not the best interest of the American public.''

I couldn't agree more. I strongly urge Members to oppose this misguided bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record correspondence in opposition to this bill: a letter from the American Lung Association, the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the American Public Health Association, the National Medical Association, the Health Care Without Harm Association, the Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the American Thoracic Society; along with a letter from the Clean Water Action, Earthjustice, League of Conservation Voters, and Natural Resources Defense Council; as well as a letter from the League of Conservation Voters.

March 27, 2017.

Dear Representative: The undersigned health and medical

organizations are writing to express our opposition to the

EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2017 and the Honest

and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017. Our

organizations are dedicated to saving lives and improving

public health.

Science is the bedrock of sound medical and public health

decision-making. The best science undergirds everything our

organizations do to improve health. Under the Clean Air Act,

EPA has long implemented a transparent and open process for

seeking advice from the medical and scientific community on

standards and measures to meet those standards. Both of these

bills would restrict the input of scientific experts in the

review of complex issues and add undue industry influence

into EPA's decision-making process.

As written, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would

make unneeded and unproductive changes that would:

Restrict the ability of scientists to speak on issues that

include their own expertise;

Block scientists who receive any EPA grants from serving on

the EPA Scientific Advisory Board, despite their having the

expertise and conducted relevant research that earned them

these highly competitive grants;

Prevent the EPA Scientific Advisory Board from making

policy recommendations, even though EPA administrators have

regularly sought their advice in the past;

Add a notice and comment component to all parts of the EPA

Scientific Advisory Board actions, a burdensome and

unnecessary requirement since their reviews of major issues

already include public notice and comment; and

Reallocate membership requirements to increase the

influence of industry representatives on the scientific

advisory panels.

In short, EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act would limit

the voice of scientists, restrict the ability of the Board to

respond to important questions, and increase the influence of

industry in shaping EPA policy. This is not in the best

interest of the American public.

We also have concerns with the HONEST Act. This legislation

would limit the kinds of scientific data EPA can use as it

develops policy to protect the American public from

environmental exposures and permit violation of patient

confidentiality. If enacted, the legislation would:

Allow the EPA administrator to release confidential patient

information to third parties, including industry;

Bolster industry's flawed arguments to discredit research

that documents the adverse health effects of environmental

pollution; and

Impose new standards for the publication and distribution

of scientific research that go beyond the robust, existing

requirements of many scientific journals.

Science, developed by the respected men and women

scientists at colleges and universities across the United

States, has always been the foundation of the nation's

environmental policy. EPA's science-based decision-making

process has saved lives and led to dramatic improvements in

the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink and the

earth we share. All Americans have benefited from the

research-based scientific advice that scientists have

provided to EPA.

Congress should adopt policy that fortifies our scientists,

not bills that undermine the scientific integrity of EPA's

decision-making or give polluters a disproportionate voice in

EPA's policy-setting process.

We strongly urge you to oppose these bills.

Sincerely,

Katie Huffling, RN, CNM,

Director, Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments.

Harold P. Wimmer,

National President and CEO, American Lung Association.

Georges C. Benjamin, MD,

Executive Director, American Public Health Association.

Stephen C. Crane, PhD, MPH,

Executive Director, American Thoracic Society.

Cary Sennett, MD, PhD, FACP,

President & CEO, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

Paul Bogart,

Executive Director, Health Care Without Harm.

Richard Allen Williams, MD,

117th President, National Medical Association.

Jeff Carter, JD,

Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me thank the other side for their vigorous defense of this bill.

I must say that I am a nurse by profession, and I appreciate the gains we have made for using scientific data to determine what is unhealthy for the people; and it really does disturb me to see these protections being torn apart.

It is really unfortunate that we have spent so much time putting these protections of the people in place to see that, in this administration, they will probably fly away. Only the people of this Nation will be the losers, with more healthcare costs when they don't even want health care; more people not able to get out of dirty areas.

I live in the State of Texas where we have seen the detriment of all of the lack of these protections before they came about. Scientists are in science because they believe in the theories that put forth the procedures for us to follow for the safety and protection of human beings.

I regret that we are at a point this time in history where we are willing to throw all that away because of allowing the polluting companies to have more to say about policy. I regret that I have to stand against my colleagues that feel so strongly about getting rid of these protections, but I cannot sit idly by without saying that our Nation will not be in better shape when we take away all the protections for the people and their health.

Everybody wants clean air and clean food and protections from the damage that a bad environment brings, and all this is is taking away those protections.

I ask everyone to vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 242 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

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. Speaker, I have an inquiry for the Speaker, if I may. What is the title of this bill?

That is all right, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga), my friend.

I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

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. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.