On the recordApril 27, 2016
The amendment from the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee effectively repeals the HALOS Act. We are having the same debate that we just had. It would effectively outlaw demo days as they are currently practiced. The whole idea of the HALOS Act is to ensure that demo days, which existed prior to this SEC rule, will continue and that startups can continue to have access to capital without the additional burden of having to screen those who actually come in to demo days. Mr. Speaker, again, a private offering. The security can only be purchased by an accredited investor. Those are the existing rules. So there is almost a mythical group that the ranking member is attempting to protect. At the end of the day, these are millionaire investors who are the angel investors, who are the accredited investors whom we need to help fund these startups. What the gentlewoman from California's amendment does, again, is guts the bill. It basically just simply codifies this SEC rule, and that absolutely overturns the congressional intent to make sure that we have greater access to capital. In addition, there is an entire new defined term of ``issuer'' in her amendment, notwithstanding the fact that this is already defined in section 3(aa) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. So we have undefined, vague terms that are being introduced here.…





