tv U.S. House of Representatives Legislative Business CSPAN April 27, 2016 2:00pm-4:01pm EDT
spotlight on potential gaps in the system. over the years since, the f.b.i. s made significant improvements to the data base, office of the inspector general revealed movement in the right direction. but to date, no independent review has been conducted to evaluate the sufficiency of these changes. . it directs the government accountability office to conduct their review of the operation and administration of the terrorist screening database. this review will assess whether past weaknesses have been eliminated and the extent to which existing vulnerabilities
may be addressed or mitigated through additional changes. an independent audit will give us the tools we need to make additional changes, if necessary. i want to commend once again the distinguished gentlelady from texas, sheila jackson lee, ranking member of the subcommittee on crime, terrorism, homeland security, and investigations of the judiciary committee for her leadership on this important issue. i also want to thank the chairman of the full committee, chairman goodlatte, and former chairman of the judiciary committee, chairman sensenbrenner, for their assistance in bringing this important legislation to the floor today. so i join with all of those who are with us in supporting this measure.
i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the from virginia. mr. goodlatte: we continue to reserve. i believe we have the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: i believe we have no other speakers and i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, in concluding a lot of thanks goes to, as i indicated, the chairman, chairman goodlatte, ranking member conyers, and mr. ratliff, who is a member of the committee. my colleagues on homeland security as well who have a great interest in this legislation. our commit n-this legislation is to leave no stone unturned, no page unturned, and no iota of information that will be necessary to make this list a
more viable and secure list. and that work now will be done by this legislation. no fly for foreign terrorists. it will help to make the terrorist screening center an asset, further asset to our homeland security infrastructure. we want to make certain that those men and women have the tools they need to contain and keep the nation -- to continue to keep the nation safe with 30,000 foreign fighters and others going every day, 250 americans who have gone to the cali fat, gone to the fight -- caliphate, gone to the fight, individuals who may have an interest in returning to this contry, harm, damage, i believe h.r. 4240 is the next step in ensuring that the screening and watch listing process works as intended to have worked, and works without as many errors as possible. errorless, if you will, because that is what we need to secure this nation. i urge all of my colleagues to support this commonsense
bipartisan measure and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: this is good legislation. this is common sense to conduct a review of the terrorist watch listing pros answer i urge my colleagues to support the legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4240, as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid pon the table.
for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 699, the email privacy act, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 408, h.r. 699, a bill to amend title 18 united states code to update the privacy protections for electronic communications information that are stored by third party service providers in order to protect consumer privacy interests while meeting law enforcement needs, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and and include remarks
extraneous material on h.r. 699 currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: today is an historic day. today the house of representatives will be the first chamber in congress to approve legislation that has been pending before the house and senate for several years to reform and modernize the electronic communications privacy act, reforming this outdated law has been a priority for me as chairman of the judiciary committee. i have worked with members of the congress, advocacy groups, and law enforcement agencies for years on many complicated nuances involved in updating this law. two weeks ago the house judiciary committee unanimously reported a revised commercial of h.r. 699, the email privacy act. the resulting bill is a carefully negotiated agreement
to update the procedures governing government access to stored communications content and records. 30 years ago when personal computing was still in its infancy, and few of us had ever heard of something called the world wide web, congress enacted the law. in 1986 mail was sent through the u.s. postal service, a search engine was called a library. tweets were the sounds made by birds in the trees. and clouds were found only in the sky. in 1986 computer storage was finite and spentionive. it was unheard of that a commercial product would allow users to send and receive electronic communications around the globe for free and store those communications for years
with a third party provider. so much has changed in the last three decades. the technology explosion of the last three decades has placed a great deal of information on the internet, in our emails, and on the cloud. today commercial providers, businesses, schools, and governments of all shapes and sizes provide email and cloud computing services to customers, students, and employees. the email privacy act establishes for the first time in federal statute a uniform warrant requirement for stored communication content in criminal investigations regardless of the type of service provider, the age of an email, or whether the email has been opened. the bill preserves the authority for law enforcement agents to serve the warrant on the provider because, as with any other third party custodian, the information sought is stored with them. however, the bill acknowledges that providers may give notice
to their customers when in receipt of a warrant, court order, or subpoena unless the provider is court ordered to delay such notification. the bill continues current practice that delineates which remote computing service providers, or cloud providers, are subject to the warrant requirement for content in a criminal investigation. it has traditionally imposed heightened legal process and procedures to obtain information which the customer has a reasonable expectation of privacy namely emails, texts, photos, videos, and documents stored in the cloud. h.r. 699 preserves this treatment by maintaining in the statute limiting language regarding remote computing services. contrary to practice 30 years ago, today vast amounts of private sensitive information are transmitted and stored electronically. but this information may also contain evidence of a crime and
law enforcement agencies are intreesingly dependent upon stored communications content and records in their investigation. to facilitate timely disclosure of evidence to law enforcement, the bill authorizes the court to require a date for return of service of the warrant. in the absence of such a requirement, h.r. 699 requires email and cloud providers to promptly respond to warrants for communications content. current law makes no distinction between content disclosed to the public, like an advertisement on a website, versus content disclosed only to one or a handful of persons, like an email or a text message. the result is that law enforcement could be required to obtain a warrant even for publicly disclosed content. the bill clarifies that commercial public content can be obtained with process other than a warrant. lastly, h.r. 699 clarifies that
nothing in the law limits congress' authority to compel a third party provider to disclose content in furtherance of its investigative and oversight responsibilities. 30 years ago the extent to which people communicated electronically was much more limited. today, however, the ubiquity of electronic communications requires congress to ensure that legitimate expect agentses -- expect agentses of privacy -- expectations of privacy are froketted while respecting law enforcement. i am confident this bill strikes the necessary balance and does so in a way that continues to promote the development and use of new technologies and service that is reflect how people communicate with -- services that reflect how people communicate with one another today and in the future. i congratulate congressman yoder and polis for working with the committee on improvements to the bill. with this historic vote today, congress will approve legislation that embodies the
principles of the fourth amendment and reaffirms our commitment to protecting the privacy interests of the american people without unduly sacrificing public safety. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. conyers: in 2014 in a unanimous ruling delivered by chief justice roberts, the supreme court concluded that the
police may not search a cell phone without first demonstrating probable cause. citing an obvious fourth amendment interest in the vast amount of data we store on our personal devices, the court wrote, and i quote, the fact that technology now allows an individual to carry such information in his hand does not make the information any less worthy of the protection for which the founders fought. our answer to the question of whether police must do -- what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple, get a warrant. with that decision, the court took a bold step toward reconciling the fourth amendment with the advent of modern communications technology. today the house takes a similar step to reconcile our interests in privacy and due process with the realities of modern computing. act,699, the email privacy recognizes that the content of
our communications, although often stored in digital format, remains worthy of fourth amendment protection. and to the investigators, government agents who seek access to our email, our advice is coring civil -- is accordingly simple, get warrant. it is an idea whose time has long since come. this bill will allow us to move to a clear uniform standard for law enforcement agencies to access the could be tent -- the contevent our communications, namely warrant based on probable cause. h.r. 699 also codifies the right of the providers to give notice of this intrusion to their customers, except in certain exigent circumstances that must
also be validated by the court. we should note that the absence of a special carve out from the warrant requirement for the civil agencies, like the securities and exchange commission, and the internal revenue service. . in the house judiciary committee we met coon census, that a civil be carveout of any kind is unworkable, unconstitutional or both -- consensus, that a civil carveout of any kind is unworkable, unconstitutional or both. in the digital world, no amount of due diligence necessarily tells us that the government has access to our electronic communications. the government should have an obligation to provide us with
some form of notice when intruding on a record of our most private conversations. but i understand that not everyone shares this feeling and i'm willing to compromise for now in order to advance the important reforms that we will adopt today. i'm proud of the work we've done. this legislation is several years in the making, and it should not be delayed any further. and i compliment our colleague, mr. polis, and accordingly, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 699, the email privacy act, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, the chief sponsor of the
legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. yoder: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. speaker. today is a great day for the constitution, it's a great day for the spirit of bipartisan ship in this chamber and it's a great day for americans who uses modern technology such as emails, text messages and cell phones to communicate with each other. this day is a long time in the making and i want to thank the chairman and his staff, ranking member conyers, my colleague, mr. polis, and everyone who's worked on this legislation. this is the most co-sponsored bill in the entire united states house, the most popular bill because it's a commonsense piece of legislation that affects every american and will clear up a longtime hole in the law that allowed the government to intrude on americans' privacy. you have to go back to 1986 when this law was passed. haley's comet was passing by earth. "top gun" was a new movie. cabbage patch dolls was flying off the shelves. it was a good time in congress.
that's when they updated the communications privacy act. there was 10 million americans that had email accounts. there are 232 million americans that has email accounts. it wasn't until six years later someone sent the first text message in 1992. yet, now we expect a billion text messages to be sent every single year. the current law, the law that was written in 1986 allows an abuse of our constitutional rights by treating our digital information as if it is not a private information, as if it can be searched and seized by the government without a warrant, without probable cause, without due process. and the theory in 1986, if you leave your email on a server, once it's left there it's considered abandoned. it's like trash left out on the street corner. it doesn't have an expectation of privacy anymore. we know the way americans communicate today is a way they expect the transmissions will be private and the government
won't search those emails or capture them for other purposes. so the fourth amendment's being violated and today we restore the fourth amendment. we treat digital information just like paper information and we stand strong on the notion that americans do have an expectation of privacy in their email accounts. i would think we, as our colleagues here, if we would each ask our constituents, do they expect their email conversations are private, they know they are. they expect that they are, and as we're debating this bill, americans are sending emails back and forth and text messages back and forth and they expect their government is not reviewing those. and so what we do in this legislation is we require a warrant. we say the government must go get probable cause. they must go to a judge, whether it's at a federal level, state level, local court, those pieces of digital information that's stored on dropbox or icloud or a text message sent back and forth, to review those you have to have a warrant and in a civil matter you have to have a subpoena. that subpoena is served on the
individual. ultimately, we have documents on our desks at home. those documents, the police can't kick in your door and go read those documents unless they have a warrant backed upon probable cause. we have a digital set of documents going around with us wherever we go. there is a file cabinet with us, and when we store things, we're doing so not because we're abandoning it, we're storing it because we're wanting to protect it and we're wanting to ensure we keep it and don't want to lose our fourth amendment protections because of this. this legislation would require a warrant or civil subpoena exists in order to read that nformation in -- and a due process occurs. democrats and republicans, we're not able to find resolution on some of the biggest challenges but the fourth amendment and the constitution has to be preserved and i'm heartened by the fact my colleague, mr. polis, and groups on the left and groups on the right have come together and groups in the center and america together has come together on this legislation to say we're going
to fix this and we're going to ensure that this congress modernizes its laws, that it does so in a bipartisan fashion and that we can put this bill on the president's desk and that he will sign it into law. and so as we continue to advance, we must remember to vance the laws that are -- that this country ue lieses and as -- utilizes and i'm proud of the work we're doing in the house today. i want to thank the chairman and his team. i want to thank ranking member conyers and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. this is a great day for america, a great day for the constitution and a great day for each and every one of us who uses email to correspond to know that the fourth amendment continues to protect us and the internet is not immune from the protections of the constitution. with that, mr. speaker, i'll yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm now pleased to recognize one of the authors of the measure before us, the gentleman from
colorado, mr. polis, who i will yield three minutes to. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. the passage of the email privacy act is an enormous victory. it's a victory for all americans who believe in the right to privacy, the fourth amendment and due process. the email privacy act mandates for the first time that americans have the same legal protection for their emails as they do for papers, letters, faxes and other old communications. the bill protects those of us, myself included, many members of this body, who have email accounts in the cloud. maybe it's google mail, yahoo! mail or a.o.l. and makes sure the government doesn't have without a warrant, to search for emails older than 180 days. this bill is also a victory for bipartisanship. when i introduced the bill, along with my colleague, mr. yoder, in the winter of 2015 we knew it would be popular. as this bill sits before us today ready for passage i'm
proud to say it's garnered 314 co-sponsors and stands as the single most popular bill in this session of the house of representatives. and i'm excited that it's scheduled for a floor vote. when congress passed the electronic communications act in 1986, electronic communications were different than they are today. they didn't really exist. a few professors using the internet, it was not a mass form of communication. today, with 24/7 accessibility, with mobile devices and laptops, over 205 billion emails are sent every day, according to some estimates. including many that contain our private communications for millions of americans who deserve the same right to privacy as documents in a file cabinet. with the passage of the email privacy act, congress will ensure that your emails older than 180 days are subject to the same protection under the fourth amendment. that you often hear members on both sides of the aisle talking about commonsense bills and
when you read our bill, you look at the immense support, there's nothing more common sense than the email privacy act. i urge my colleagues to vote yes and pass the bill. i urge the senate to take it up and act. you have the unanimous support from the house judiciary committee and as of today, hopefully soon, overwhelming support on the floor of the house. this bill should be passed. it should be brought to the desk of the president of the united states. we should finally bring our email privacy laws into the 21st century. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. poe: i thank the speaker. i thank the chairman for bringing this bill up and his work on it in a bipartisan way and especially want to thank congressman yoder for pushing this legislation that has overwhelming support in the house of representatives. the electronic communications
privacy act was passed in 16986, 30 years ago -- 1986, 30 years ago. i understand that i.b.m. invented and put on the market their first laptop in 1986. a lot has changed since that day 30 years ago. and the cloud, as the chairman mentioned, the cloud was where rain came from. sometimes we see it here in washington, d.c., the cloud. no one even knew what that was, but the electronic communications privacy act needs to be fixed because it does not protect the right of privacy of americans. something is stored in the cloud that's over 180 days old, then it's open season for government to seize all that information. all governments, local or state or federal government can go in and get those emails, texts, photographs, documents that you're storing, but up to 180 days it's protected by the constitution. interesting.
180 days of constitutional rights, but 181 days you have no right of privacy. that's absurd. this bill fixes that former legislation. i used to be a judge in texas for 22 years, and i had peace officers all the time coming to see me, want a warrant. they followed the fourth amendment. describe the place to be searched. they go in with that warrant after stating probable cause and they were allowed to seize whatever they could seize under the warrant. the fourth amendment ought to apply today and ought to apply in the electronic age and ought to apply to emails that are stored in the cloud or anything else that's stored in the cloud. if the police officers had to have a warrant to go into your house and take documents you store in your desk or wherever, then they have to have a warrant if you store documents in the cloud. that's what this legislation does. and it makes sense that we protect the constitutional right. you know, the government cannot
tap our phones without a warrant. it can't read hard mail without a warrant, and it can't enter our homes without a warrant because the fourth amendment. we are unique among all peoples because we have in our constitution the fourth amendment that protects, i think, americans better than any other population anywhere of their constitution or of their rights. people speak of rights. government doesn't have rights. people have rights, and the bill of rights protects citizens of the united states. government has authority. it has power, and if you read the bill of rights, the 10 amendments especially, it's to limit government power and authority against us, the citizens. so, of course, the fourth amendment should apply to the federal government in this area, and unfortunately we've seen in our own government abuses of the government in the area, especially of snooping and spying on americans. the n.s.a. and their story that
we're all familiar with. we have to control government, and it's our obligation, the house of representatives, to protect the constitution, the bill of rights, especially from government intrusion. so i support this legislation. it's a good piece of legislation, and i want to thank the chairman and the ranking member and also ms. lofgren for her support of this legislation that we've been working on for a long time. let congress speak out and support the right of privacy for all americans and keep the government out of the snooping business. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to recognize a senior member of the house judiciary committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. . nadler: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise to support the email privacy act. it's long been evidence that we need to update the laws impacting our electronic
communications. i'm pleased that the house will take a step forward by approving the email privacy act. its passage is long overdue. in 2009 and 2010 when i was the chair of the judiciary subcommittee on the constitution, civil rights, civil liberties, we held hearings on the electronic communications privacy act and began to consider reforms to our nations electronic and communications privacy laws. during the 112th congress, representatives conyers and i introduced the modernization act of 2012 which would have required law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before searching email. that approach, now embodied in the yoder-polis email privacy act, is here what we are to consider today. the email privacy act requires the government to obtain a warrant in order to get electronic communications from a third party provider. protecting americans' rights
while still doing the job. this is consistent with historic american practice going back to the fourth amendment. current law is inconsistent and unclear regarding the standards for government access to the content of communications, and the single email is potentially subject to multiple different legal standards. clarifying the law will help industry stakeholders who currently struggle to apply the existing outdated categories of information to their products and services and it will provide a clear standard for law enforcement. . in an era where information is held by third party providers, it's become too easy. congress is finally taking steps to update the laws for people to be secure in their houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures in the words of the fourth amendment. this bill is not perfect. clearly there is more to be done. in particular we must ensure that we keep working to require a probable cause warrant for location information. i am pleased that chairman goodlatte has announced he plans
to hold hearings on location information and i look forward to those hearings and to subsequent legislation. i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor of this bill and i applaud the house for considering this landmark decision today. i urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill to ensure the laws strike the right balance between the interest and needs of law enforcement and the privacy rights of the american people. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized. mr. sanford: i thank my colleague for the time. i just want to applaud my colleague from kansas, my colleague from colorado for their work in crafting this bill. i think it's awfully important. i think it's what people expect when they think about government, they want a government that works for them and part of having a government that works for them means actually updating laws as technology has changed.
so i think at the core this is about keeping current with the rate of change in the world of technology. it's amazing to me, i pulled the numbers, there are roughly $205 billion -- excuse me, 205 billion emails sent every day around the world f you presuppose that america's economy is about 20% of this world pie, that means around $40 billion or more emails are sent across this country every single day. in contrast the u.s. postal service, there are about 600 million letters ago are sent around this country every day. which is to say mathematically you are talking about 1.5% of the communication flow, either by mail or electronic means, is sent by postal service. the other, in essence, 99% of the communications are sent via email. which is to say we got a real problem with law that was created in the 1980's that
doesn't take into account the way the world has changed. i applaud the crafters of this bill for what they have done in recognizing technology change. i applaud them for the way that they stay true to the fourth amendment. our founding fathers were so deliberate in recognizing the motion that you didn't want to have british soldiers coming into a house, rumbling around until they finally found something to charge you with, and then moving forward. the fourth amendment is about protecting individual liberty. jefferson said it was the normal course of things for government to gain ground and for liberty to yield. fundamentally what this bill is about is pushing back in the way that government has now encroached on that space of individual liberty. finally i would say this, this is about recognizing how true history is on the importance of protecting liberty. it was gibbons who wrote a book back in 1776 that talked about how important it was that liberty -- sorry?
mr. goodlatte: i'm happy to yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sanford: i thank the chairman. he wrote a book in 1776 about the fall of the romans. in it he harkens back to the fall of greece and the athenians and he said at the end of the day in the end more than they wanted freedom they wanted security. they wanted comfortable life. and they lost it all. security, comfort, and freedom. the athenians no longer wanted to give to society and receive and it goes on with a long quote. but he talks about that fundamental tension that exists in any developed society between freedom and security. we have moved too far in the opposite direction as it relates to email. this bill brings us back toward the center. i applaud mr. yoder and mr. polis for what they have done and what you have done, mr. chairman, on this front. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i am
delighted to yield to our effective member of the judiciary committee, miss den minutes..delbeney, two the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from washington is recognized for two minutes. ms.delbene: updating our laws with respect to the way the world works in the 20th century has been one of my top priorities in congress. after spending two decades in the technology sector where things change at light speed, it can be hard to understand why we still have laws on the books how society functions in the digital age. nowhere has this been more obvious than in our email privacy laws that date back to the 1980's. under current law there are more protections for a letter in a filing cabinet than an email on a server. this was never really the intent, but email's evolution has made it clear our policies are woefully outdated. i supported a number different proposals to reform our electronic privacy laws, and
i'll continue to push for those. but today's vote on the email privacy act is a great step forward for american civil liberties. i urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on this important legislation and i urge our friends in the senate to take the bill without delay so we can send it to the president and ensure americans are guaranteed the privacy protections most think that they already have. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i believe we have no further speakers. i yield myself-- such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'd like to close today by thanking hairman goodlatte of judiciary
and his staff for working with us to develop the final draft of this legislation. once again the chairman has helped us find a way to resolve our differences and advance core civil liberties and constitutional values. i'd also like to thank the gentleman from kansas, mr. yoder, the gentleman from colorado, of course, mr. polis. for their leadership on this issue from the very beginning. the email privacy act comes to the floor today in large part because of your work in gathering more than 300 co-sponsors for this bill. and finally i want to express appreciation to the coalition of technology companies, civil
liberties organizations, and individual experts whose persistence and dedication have made this moment possible. i urge my colleagues to support act.699, the email privacy i believe that they will do so and i also urge our comparable body in the senate to take up this measure as quickly as possible. i thank the speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it is my pleasure to yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, the majority whip, mr. scalise. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized. mr. scalise: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank chairman
goodlatte for moving this bill through his committee, and especially thank congressman yoder of kansas, for bringing this bill forward. and for being bold enough to say let's modernize a law that's so outdated it goes back to 1986, governing email communication. when you didn't even have email and text messaging. why do we want to do this? we want to do it because federal agencies are abusing this law to invade the privacy of hardworking law-abiding citizens across this contry. mr. speaker, this is a document from the internal revenue service, titled search warrant handbook. in this document by the i.r.s. their protocol says in general, the fourth amendment does not protect communications held in electronic storage. such as email messages stored on a server because internal users do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such
communications. the i.r.s. has made it clear that they don't believe that american citizens have a fourth amendment protection of privacy for their email communications. the i.r.s. has gone further and actually reading emails of american citizens. no one across the country knows about it unless the i.r.s. finds something that then they are going to go after you criminally on. so they are reading emails, the private emails, mr. speaker, of american citizens every single day and they have been doing it for years and it's time for this abuse of power to end. we need to pass this bill with strong bipartisan support, send it over to the senate, get it to the president's desk so that american citizens have real protections, privacy protections that they deserve, that they think they have, but they don't have, mr. speaker, because federal agencies like the i.r.s. today are reading the private emails of american citizens and using it against them. it's wrong. they ought to go get a warrant.
but they should not be reading our private emails when people haven't done anything wrong. let's pass this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from louisiana yields back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, how uch time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. goodlatte: it's my pleasure to yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from texas, mr. farenthold, member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. farenthold: thank you. we are here today, mr. speaker, talking about modernizing a law. but we are modernizing a law that encompass as century old principle, back in the days when the founding fathers wrote our constitution, they were concerned about the government rifling through our papers. today it's the electronic papers. stuff is stored in the cloud. this piece of legislation brings us back in line with the intent of the founding fathers that the government can't just rifle through your papers. i urge my colleagues to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i
yield myself the balance of the time. mr. speaker, i just want to take this time to thank the ranking member, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, and many members on his side of the aisle, including mr. polis. i especially want to thank mr. yoder who has worked long and hard on this legislation of which he is the chief sponsor, but i most especially want to take note of the fact that we have very disparate points of view from a whole array of people around this country, from law enforcement, to technology companies, to civil liberties organizations, it took a long time to sort through that and find the common ground that is the legislation we have before us today. that ground would not have been found without the outstanding work of our staffs. most especially caroline lynch, the chief counsel of the crime, terrorism homeland security investigation subcommittee, and her able team of attorneys. and aaron hiller, minority counsel as well. they deserve a great deefl
gratitude for the years of work to bring us to this point where we can pass this legislation, important legislation by what i believe will be a resounding majority. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 699 as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative being -- mr. goodlatte: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise. -- will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this uestion will be postponed.
for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i move that the house suspend the rules and pass s. 1890, the defend trade secrets act of 2016, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1890, an act to amend chapter 90 of title 18 united states code to provide federal jurisdiction for the theft of trade secrets, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman intend to call the bill up as introduced? mr. goodlatte: as amended.
mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i move the house bring up the ill as it passed the senate. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: senate 1890, an act of title apter 90 18, united states code, to provide federal jurisdiction for the theft of trade secrets, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from virginia, mr. goodlatte, and the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on mplet s. 1890, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: today we're here to recognize s. 1890, the defend trade secrets act of
2016. this puts forward enhancement to our federal trade secrets law, creating a federal civil remedy for trade secret misappropriation that will help american innovators protect their intellectual property from criminal theft by foreign agents and those engaging in economicess p.j.age. this bill -- economicess p.j.age. -- espionage. this bill will help our economic security. our intellectual property laws includes everything from patenters, copyrights and trademarks and trade secrets but what are trade secrets? trade secret law is used to protect some of the most iconic inventions in america. for example, a trade secret can recipes like colonel sanders secret recipe of 11 herbs and spices and coca-cola housed in the vault of world of coca-cola in atlanta, georgia. however, trade secrets are
simply not isolated to the realm of food and beverages. they can include confidential formulas like the formula for wd-40, manufacturing techniques, customer lists and algorithms like google's search engine. trade secrets occupy a unique place in the i.p. portfolios of our most innovative companies. but because they are unregistered and not formally reviewed like patents, they are no limitations on discovering a trade secret by fair, lawful methods, such as reverse engineering or independent development. in innovative industries, that is simply the free market at work. though trade secrets are not formally reviewed, they are protected from misappropriation, which includes obtaining the trade secret through improper or unlawful means. misappropriation can take many forms. whether it is an employee selling blueprints to a competitor or a foreign agent
hacking into a server. in addition, one could argue that even a foreign government's policies to require forced technology transfer is a form of misappropriation. though most states base their trade secret laws on the uniformed trade secrets act, the federal government protects trade secrets through the economic espionage act. in the 112th congress, the judiciary committee helped enact two pieces of legislation to improve the protection of trade secrets and in the 113th congress we introduced and passed out of committee the first version of this trade secrets bill unanimously. today, we build on our efforts over these past two years and are taking a significant and positive step toward improving our nation's trade secret laws and continuing to build on our important work in this area of intellectual property. i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is
recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: i rise in support s. 1890, the defend trade secrets act, and this measure amends the economic espionage act of 1996 to create a federal -civil cause of action and to facilitate expedited ex parte seizure of property when necessary to preserve evidence or prevent dissemination. the house counterpart to this bill, h.r. 3326, which was introduced by our committee colleagues, representative doug collins and the distinguished gentleman from new york, jerry nadler, now has 164 bipartisan co-sponsors, including myself.
likewise, s. 1890 enjoys broad bipartisan and bicameral support, as evidence by the fact that the senate passed this bill by a vote of 87-0 earlier this month. and the house judiciary committee reported this bill favorably by unanimous voice vote only last week. now, there's several reasons that i support the legislation. to begin with, s. 1890 will enhance the protection of trade secrets, which is integral to the success of any business. it is estimated that the value of trade secrets owned by united states companies as of 2009 was approximately $5 trillion. although trade secrets are fundamental to the success of any business, united states
companies have struggled to protect these valuable assets, especially in a digital age of smartphones and the internet. it is estimated that the loss of trade secrets, as a result of cyberespionage, cost these businesses between $200 billion and $300 billion annually. thieves take advantage of ever-evolving innovative technologies to access sensitive trade secrets information and to distribute it immediately. while federal law protects other forms of intellectual property by providing access to federal courts for grieved parties to seek redress, there is no civil cause of action for
enforcement of trade secrets protection. 1890 addresses this need by establishing a federal causeact to obtain injunctive and monetary relief, which will be a powerful new tool to protect their intellectual property. now, another reason i support the bill is that it would foster uniformity among the states. although states provide civil remedies for trade secret theft, these laws often fall short when trade secrets are taken across state lines. as a result, businesses that have nationwide operations must deal with various differing state laws which can be too costly for some businesses, particularly smaller ones. this also prevents businesses
from taking full advantage of the rights that they might have under the law. senate bill 1890 would provide trade secret owners access to uniform national law and the ability to make their case in federal court. and lastly, i support the bill because it reflects constructive feedback from various stakeholders. we've been working on this legislation for almost two years. it reflects the input from a broad spectrum of stakeholders, and the bill is an excellent example of what can be achieved when there's bipartisan collaboration. and so i close and urge my colleagues to support this important legislation so that we can send it back -- send it
to the president's desk for signature and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- does the gentleman mean to reserve? mr. conyers: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, at this time it's my pleasure to yield five minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, the chief sponsor of the house version of this bill and a member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. collins: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of s. 1890, the defend trade secrets act. i introduced the house companion and i'm proud to see this bill moving forward. this legislation is sorely needed to protect the united states from billions of dollars it faces in losses each year due to trade theft secrets. however, the legislation could not have reached this point without the hard work and dedication of several people. first, i'd like to thank chairman goodlatte and his staff to move this through the judiciary committee and move to
the floor. this has been, as the ranking member said, a several year process. i want to thank those who introduced the house version for me. mr. nadler, mr. jeffries for their willingness to work across the aisle to implement meaningful reform. on the senate side, senators hatch and coons, were instrumental in getting us to this point. the leadership along with leadership of senator grassley, had a vote of 87-0 and ensure this bill was able to come to the house. i'd like to thank jennifer, my former legislative director, for her hand in introconducting this legislation in the process. her contributions should be valued. also the work of sally larson who has taken up the mantle in my office and helped us get to the finish line. this enjoys support of a broad range of groups, the american
bar association, intellectual property section, the information, technology and industrial council, the chamber of commerce, the national association of manufacturers and many more. in fact, this bill has more than 160 bipartisan co-sponsors. mr. speaker, estimates show as much as 80% of the companies' assets are intangible, many in the form of trade secrets. couple that with trade secret theft is costing america billions of dollars each year. in fact, one study says it costs americans $300 billion annually and that price tag will continue to grow aztec nothing and thieves become more sophisticated. trade secrets theft jeopardizes our economic security and threaten jobs which is why it's important to take steps to address it. it includes everything from business information to designs to prototypes and formulas. coming from georgia, one good comparm is the recipe for coca -- example is the recipe for coca-cola. they are a critical form of intellectual property, yet they
don't enjoy the same protections that apply to other forms such as copyrights, patents and trademarks. trade secrets derive -- this confident business information can be protected for an unlimited time. however, once trade secrets are disclosed, they instantly lose their value, making it even more important to have the mechanisms in place to protect them. currently, federal law is insufficient to address many of he challenges in today's economy. the economic espionage act, which made trade secret theft by foreign nationals a criminal offense. however, this only addresses part of the problem and criminalizes only a portion of trade secret theft whereas a federal civil remedy for misappropriation would allow companies to broadly protect their property. the defend trade secrets act will address that and protect the valuable trade secrets which in turn protects american
jobs and innovation. the bill will empower companies to protect their trade secrets in federal court by creating a federal-private right of action. the bill streamlines access to relief in extraordinary circumstances and allows victims of trade secret theft to obtain -- to ensure trade secrets are not abused while a case is pending. it provides for an injunction in damages. protecting the trade secrets of companies is crucial for keeping our country a leader in the world economy, providing a federal-civil remedy will provide certainty for companies throughout the nation, including my home state of georgia. congress has a responsibility to give industries the tools they need to protect their intellectual property and in turn encourage job creation and economic growth. this bill takes a step forward in better protecting american innovation. again, i want to thank the tireless work of the house and senate colleagues in advancing this critical legislation and i'm proud to see this bill which provides the intellectual property protection and moves businesses forward. i would ask my colleagues to
support me in supporting the defend trade secrets act. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to yield to jerry nadler, an author of this bill, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of s. 1890, the defend trade secrets act of 2016. this long overdue legislation would protect businesses across the country from the growing threat of trade secret theft by creating a uniformed federal cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets. trade secrets are proprietary business information that derive their value from being and remaining secret. this includes secret recipes, software codes and manufacturing processes. information that if disclosed could prove ruinous to a company. as the united states economy becomes more service-based,
with one estimate placing the value of trade secrets in the united states at $5 trillion. unfortunately, with such for turns resting on trade secrets, theft of this intellectual property is inevitable and in today's digital environment it's never been easier to transfer the stolen property across the globe with a click of a button. the american economy loses annually $300 billion or more due to misappropriation of trade secrets, leading to a loss of up to 2.1 million jobs each year. with so much at stake, it's absolutely vital that the law includes strong protections of theft against trade secrets. but laws has proven inadequate to the job. while the federal government may bring criminal prosecutions and may move for civil injunctions, this power is rarely exercised and often fails to adequately compensate the victims. this system has not proven
efficient or effect tiffer across states and international borders. once upon a time, trade secrets might have been kept in a file cabinet and thieves would have to get a physical copy and more likely to get caught. they could be sent electronically across the globe. pursuing a defendant across state lines presents a host of challenges for victims of trade secrets theft when time is of the essence and the need for a federal solution is therefore clear. this bill creates a civil cause of action for theft of trade secrets and provides for expedited seizure of property but only in extraordinary circumstances where necessary to preserve evidence. as the lead democratic co-sponsor, the house companion to this legislation, i'm pleased
this bill is on the floor today and i want to thank everyone who has worked so hard to bring us to this point and in particular, the t to thank the sponsor gentleman from georgia, mr. collins and ranking member conyers, chairman goodlatte and mr. jeffries and the sponsors of the senate bill, senators hatch and coons. the bill we are considering today represents the culmination of over two years of negotiations with various stakeholders -- 30 seconds. mr. conyers: 30 more seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: this bill represents over two years of negotiations with the various stakeholders and strong bipartisan with 164 co-sponsors in the house and 65 in the senate. this is good legislation that carefully balances the rights of defendants. the senate passed the bill 87-0 and with passage today here we
can send it straight to the president's desk. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i recognize mr. jeffries of new york. he is a distinguished member of the judiciary committee and i yield to him. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. jeffries: i thank the ranking member for yielding and his tremendous leadership and that of chairman goodlatte and congressman collins as well as congressman nadler as well as the trade secrets coalition for their tremendous work in getting us to this point where we are on the verge of passing this very important piece of legislation. whether it's the original recipe created by colonel sanders in
connection with kentucky fried chicken or the special sauce made famous by the iconic big mac of mcdonald's or cornings glass that is used and found in our smartphones all across the country, trade secrets are as american as baseball and apple pie. but unfortunately we found ourselves in the last few years where trade secret theft has become a significant problem. by some accounts costing us in excess of $300 billion per year d more than two million jobs annually. traditionally trade secret theft has been dealt with on the civil side as a matter of state law. but because of the increasing nature of the problem and the fact that it is both multi state
and multinational in nature, the state law domain has become inadequate. which brings us to this piece of legislation, which would create a federal civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation giving our companies and stakeholders access to a uniform body of law that can deal with trade secret theft in a more appropriate fashion. that is why this piece of legislation is so significant in this climate and why i'm so thankful of the leadership of all those who brought us to this point. i urge everyone to support this bill and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i believe i have the right to close. so i will continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, we have no further speakers and i return the balance of our time.
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. goodlatte: i yield myself the balance of my time. in closing, mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, i want to thank my fellow judiciary colleagues and their staffs who devoted much time, energy and intellect in this project. we worked together to improve our nation's trade secret laws for the past two years. i want to particularly thank representative doug collins and representative nadler and the co-sponsors of this legislation in in the house. in the senate we worked with senators hatch, grassley, leahy, conons andors. i would like to thank the white house and u.s. patent and trademark office for working with us on this effort and the protect trade secrets coalition for its work on this effort. i want to thank my staff for all
their hard work on this legislation. this bill is a product of years of bipartisan bicameral work and it will have a positive impact on u.s. competitiveness, job creation and our nation's future economic security. i urge my colleagues to support s. 1890 and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 1890. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 -- mr. goodlatte: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20. further proceedings on this question will be postponed.
the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. motions to suspend the rules on h.r. 4923 and h.r. 699, each by the yeas and nays, ordering the previous question on house resolution 701 and adoption of house resolution 701, if ordered. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from texas, mr. brady, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4923 as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4923, a bill to establish a process for the submission and consideration of
petitions for temporary duty suspensions and reductions and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
yeas are 415 and the nays are two. the bill is passed and without objection is laid on the table. the unfinished is vote on the motion of the the gentleman from virginia to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 699. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 699, a bill to amend title 18 united states code, to update the privacy protections for electronic communications information that are stored by third-party service providers in order to protect consumer privacy interests while meeting law enforcement needs and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 419, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 701 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 109, house resolution 701, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 4498 to clarify the definition of general solicitations under federal security laws. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 238, the nays are 18 1. the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the previous resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted -- >> i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of
he house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 701, i call up the bill h.r. 4498 to clarify the definition of general solicitation under federal securities law and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 389, h.r. 4498, a bill to clarify the definition of general solicitation under federal securities law. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the house resolution 701, the bill is considered read. >> the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct, the house is not in order. can we take conversations off
the floor, please. pursuant to house resolution 701, the bill is considered read. the bill shall be debated for one hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, and the gentleman from california, mr. -- the gentlewoman from california, ms. waters, each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i ask unanimous consent to all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials on the bill under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hensarling: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: -- >> the house is not in order.
the speaker pro tempore: the house is not in order. ladies and gentlemen, please take your conversations off the floor. he house will be in order. -- the house will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: i rise in strong support today of h.r. 449 , the helping angels lead our startup act, halo act. this is another bipartisan bill passed out of the financial services committee that i know will help create jobs and grow our economy and we all know from listening to our constituents the jobs and economy continues to be the number one issue of concern because this economy is still not working for working americans. after many years, they still see their paychecks have stagnated. they have seen their savings evap -- evaporate. they are losing hope. we see entrepreneurship is at a generation aloe and the halos act is a step in the right direction. it is one of many solutions that
we need to enact in this body system of i commend the bipartisan sponsors of the bill, mr. chabot, chairman of the small business committee, mr. hurt of virginia, and ms. sinema of arizona, the latter two who serve with me on the financial services committee. i want to thank all my colleagues on the financial services committee for voting overwhelmingly in favor of this bill, almost 80% of the membership of the committee voted to advance it to the floor. so i'm proud that our committee has a strong record of bipartisanship. since the begin offering the 114th congress, mr. speaker, the house has passed 56 of our measures, 30 have been signed into law and each one of these measures receive bipartisan support in an era of divided government. that's not a bad record. i believe that most americans also believe that our economy works better for all americans when small businesses can focus on creating jobs rather than
navigating meaningless bureaucratic red tape. the halos act provides an important fix for regulations so it will be easier for our small businesses to attract investments. again, mr. speaker so critical when entrepreneurship is at a generation aloe and our economy limps along at even less than 2% of economic growth. the halos act provides a clear path for startup businesses to connect with angel investors and allows investors to make their own informed decisions. angel investors play an incredibly act i role in helping small businesses open their doors so they can open their doors even wider and hire more workers. we should remember and many of our colleagues are now aware that companies like amazon, cost coe, google, facebook and starbuckses were all first funded by angel investors and now today not only the services they provide in our economy but
approximately 600,000 employees earn their paychecks, provide for their families, working for companies that were started with angel investors. but unfortunately, as so often happens when washington regulators get out of control they step into the picture and yet we have more unintended consequence. four years ago, congress passed the bipartisan jobs act to make it easier for business startups to gain access to cap capital. but the security and exchange commission issued misguided regulations on angel investors that have exactly the opposite effect. by inappropriately classifying events where entrepreneurs showcase their business models to angel investors as general solicitation, the s.e.c. regulations are causing innovative startups to lose access to capital, which mean ours economy loses jobs. this is counter, counter to congress' intent when we passed the jobs act and it's certainly
counter to what our economy needs now. mr. speaker, what is so ironic is that the practice was legal and proper before the passage of the jobs act. it should remain legal and proper after the passage of the jobs act. this is a problem that congress can easily fix by approving the halos act. it's not a complicated bill, mr. speaker. it is four pages long. it simply ensures that funding from angel investors remain available to business startups. bipartisan bill makes sure that events where entrepreneurs and angel investors get together are not classified as general solicitations because they're not. instead of onerous bureaucratic red tape that deters investors from backing new business startup, the four-page halos act will help new businesses gain investor support when they need it most. mr. speaker, as i mentioned earlier, this bill sailed through the house financial services committee with strong
bipartisan support. out of 5 members voting in committee that day, only 13 opposed the bill. in other words, almost 80% of the committee voted in favor of the halos act. the bill has strong bipartisan support because it is common sense. it's about jobs, it's about helping small businesses overcome misguided regulations, and it is about making sure that congress makes the law, not the regulators who are unelected and who are unaccountable. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. waters: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to h.r. 4498, the helping angels lead our startups act. this bill would make changes to invest protections under the jobs act that i believe are ill advised and could lead to
unintended consequences for our regulatory framework. it would do so by broadening the scope of when private securities offerings can be solicitted or advertised to the public without first verifying that the purchaser is financially sophisticated enough to understand the risk involved. what we call, quote, accredited investors, unquote. specifically, the bill would require the s.e.c. to amend its safe harbor rules for private placement under rule 506 of regulation d so that the current verification requirements for general solicitation and advertising do not effectively apply to sales events sponsored by certain groups, colleges, nonprofits, trade associations, or angel investor groups for