324 offerings. even the president's jobs council in its 2011 end of year report cited that the united states ranks 12th now in ease of access to venture capital behind israel, hong kong, norway and singapore, among others. the bottom line is that fewer and fewer companies are choosing to go public an those that do are not necessarily going public on the exchanges in the united states. . this would reduce the cost of going public for small and medium sized companies by phasing in certain regularerty to requirements. reducing these regulations will help small companies raise capital, grow their business, and create private jobs for americans. i have reviewed the amounts made in -- amendments made in order by the rules committee h.r. 3606, and i will be opposing some and supporting others. the gentleman from delaware and i will be offering a manager's amendment which will make technical improvements to the

bill. i look forward to a lively debate here in this chame perfect and i support the rule to consider this bill. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, the ranking member of the financial services committee, mr. frank. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for four minutes. mr. frank: mr. speaker, this is a perfectly nice bill, but things are sometimes judged in comparison. it is being hailed as a bigger bill than it is, but that's what happens when you grade on a curve as we grade on a curve. one of the great philosophers of the 20th century was a man named henry youngman. -- henne youngman. one of his thoughts of wisdom was expressed in the question and answer, how's your wife. compared to what? compared to the output of this house so far, this is a very, very, very major bill.

compared to our economy in general, it's a good bill but of no immediate significance in terms of jobs. and useful for the future. but as i said i think it's important it's getting pumped up a little bit so we can avoid here as a collective body the charge that we haven't done anything. i do have one criticism of the rule and i have expressed this hope yesterday. i was frustrated. a number of amendments were made in order and i appreciate that, but every single amendment is debated for only 10 minutes. that's unworthy of a deliberative body. there are important questions here that are involved in these issues. if you think these bills are important, then the amendments to them are important. now, that's within the context of support. in most cases we are talking about people who support the concept but have some difference abouts what should be there. but to say every amendment gets debated for only 10 minutes, five minutes on each side, is to denigrate the deliberative

function to a point which is of great concern to me. it's not as if we have been so busy that we couldn't carve out time for 20 minutes or even a half-hour of debate. so i regret the dumbing down of the house which is represented by saying that no issue would be debated for more than 10 minutes. one other question of a procedural sort, the ranking member of the financial services committee, one of the bills in here, most of these bills have been through the committee, six bills, four passed the house, two bills i was told were from the committee, but one of the bills, h.r. 4088, it's got a new sponsor, the gentleman from indiana, mr. quayle, and we have never seen that in our committee. i checked. that bill was introduced february 24 or something. it's never had a hearing. it's never been through committee. so why are we getting a bill on the floor now that has never been seen in our committee? i would yield to the gentleman from the rules committee. mr. sessions: i'm not seeking recognition --

mr. frank: i thought -- mr. sessions: the gentleman from arizona has a good bill and i encourage you to read it. mr. frank: i have read the bill, but to be told that we are going to in a party that says -- voted for regular order bring out a bill, 4088 has had no committee consideration whatsoever. the other bills have. the other five. but it's never been brought up in a hearing, it's never been in subcommittee, it's never been in committee. and the notion that it's a good bill and therefore should be immune from any committee process is very discouraging. this is a bill that's only been in existence for a couple weeks. and the gentleman says well, it's a good bill, read it. then i guess we don't need the committee. we don't need to do anything. but the process is supposed to be one where these things go through some vetting. so i am disappointed that we have a rule that brings a bill to the floor that literally has had no committee consideration whatsoever, brand new bill,

apparently, because got a brand new sponsor. we have seen nothing like this. but i have seen no bill from the gentleman from arizona, mr. quail. i have seen no bill -- mr. quayle. i have seen no bill like 4088 hasn't had a hearing, hasn't been through committee. and at the same time the rules committee thinks you can take all these interesting questions. should there or shouldn't there be an exemption? and debate them all in only 10 minutes, five minutes on a side. that hardly serves as a deliberative process. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. frank: i say some members think the bills may have more impact than i do. i hope i'm wrong. but if you really believe the bills are this important, why, then, is a debate only for 10 minutes on every single amendment? on the size, on the reporting requirements. we have amendments that have been requested by the north american securities administration, the state regulators. five minutes on the side. that is hardly a mark of people who take the deliberative process in the u.s. house of

representatives very seriously. i thank the gentleman from colorado. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, thank you very much. just so you know the gentleman is correct. and i appreciate his viewpoint of this. this is a copy of mr. quayle's bill right here. it's about 1/3 of a page long. and it's a good idea that says we are going to increase the number of people who can invest in community bank. i hope that should not require us to have to go back and do too much thinking about how great this would be. we are trying to perfect instead of by just having an amendment to allow our members to take part in these things with their good ideas. i do take that what the gentleman said is correct, but good ideas are a part of this bill and that should be what we are about here on the floor just as the amendment that may not

have gone through -- mr. frank: would the gentleman yield? mr. sessions: i wish i could. i'm out of time. -i a appreciate the gentleman. he'll have plenty of time. at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for four minutes. mr. mchenry: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank my colleague, mr. sessions, for his leadership on the rules committee and otherwise in this house. i also want to commend mr. fincher from tennessee for offering this legislation, very important bill. mr. speaker, i rise today to support and speak in favor of the jobs act. what this legislation does is address a key concern that i hear from my constituents in western north carolina. we know that entrepreneurship here in the united states is at a 17-year low. we also realize that the rest of the world has caught up to us in terms of their capital markets and business formation. we also know that small

businesses create the majority of new jobs in the united states. so it's very important for us in light of the new regulatory changes that have happened in the last couple of years here in washington, the add vend of dodd-frank that increases the cost of lending and makes it less available for small businesses. the card act that makes credit cards less available to the average person and tries to start up their business like my father did on his credit card. we also realize that the regulatory changes, the more higher red tape that we have here in washington, makes it more expensive to do business here in the united states. these are major concerns. these are major concerns from my constituents in western north carolina. and i want to commend mr. fincher for offering the jobs act. we've got some very important pieces of information and policy changes in this bill. if you look at the 1990's, we had 530 i.p.o.'s on average

every year. we had fewer than 65 in the year of 2009. we realize that going public is not the avenue for every business. though the dream of many small business folks. important component of the jobs act is a piece of legislation we passed that i authored here in the house with the help of my colleague from new york, mrs. maloney, the crowd funding act which allows small businesses to access the capital markets to sell equity rather than ask for debt. sell equity in their great start-up or new idea. crowd funding takes the best of microfinance and crowd sourcing and uses the power of the internet for small businesses to have official in their company. now, it could be used for a tech company certainly. to raise up to $2 million. it could be used for a coffee shop in hickory or asheville in western north carolina to raise

$50,000. and sell equity in their business. these regulatory changes are very important. we have regulations and laws on the books that 1933 securities act, 1934 securities and exchange act that really were the reaction to the problems and challenges of their day. they put in restrictions in terms of advertising about your security. well, that was a problem when the telephone was the new technology of the day. but we have the power of the internet and people are more informed today than they were 100 years ago about investing. so we are changing these regulatory structures so that small businesses can get the capital they need to grow and expand. that's what this is all about. it doesn't fix every problem that we face today. but this is a bipartisan bill. it's a good idea. the president has spoken in favor of many of the components of this legislation, and we hope, not to simply pass it out

of the house in a bipartisan basis, but to ensure that we pass-through the senate and the president signs it, these are good ideas that can have an impact and help us grow and create jobs. it helps entrepreneurs, it helps small businesses. those folks are the lifeblood of economic growth and that's what we need to be focused on. i urge adoption of the rule. and ask my colleagues to vote for passage. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from texas has 10 minutes remaining. the gentleman from colorado has 14 minutes remaining. the gentleman from colorado is recognized. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from new york and author of key provisions of this bill, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for four minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership on the rules committee. i rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill. it's a package of bills designed to encourage the growth of smaller companies and start-ups, and it contains six separate

bills, four of which have already passed this body by overwhelming majorities. and i share the concerns of the ranking member, mr. frank, that the 17 amendments that were put in place, adequate time has not been given to fully debate them. i do want to take issue with my good friend from north carolina in his criticism of the card act saying that it has made it harder for americans to receive cards. this bill do passed this body overwhelmingly with a democratic leadership, i was proud to be the lead sponsor on it, working with all of my colleagues from the democratic side, and what it did is it stopped unfair deceptive practices, "money" magazine called this bill the best friend a credit card holder ever had. and pew foundation came out with a report earlier this year saying that this democratic bill alone saves consumers and our

country $10 billion in one year. i would say that's an advantage for consumers, an excellent goal that was championed by our president and by the democratic leadership. i would like to take issue with this comprehensive jobs agenda. i do support it, but i think that we should be working on major job creating opportunities such as the transportation bill and the president's jobs act, and these two bills would create half a million jobs. here we are repackaging a group of old bills that we passed before and it does not constitute a comprehensive jobs bill. as i said, four of the six bills have already passed the house with major support on both sides of the aisle, and i'm disturbed that one bill was taken from my

democratic colleague, jim himes. i would like to quote "the washington post", "the washington post" said, i quote, this jobs act is not new legislation but is instead a grab bag of items that have already passed at the committee level or on the house floor by wide bipartisan votes. these previously passed bills makes them useful and yet modest steps forward, but they are no substitute for a major job creating highway bill or passage of the full american jobs act. these bills make modest changes for start-up companies. making it easier for them to raise capital through the internet and the solicitation of accredited investors and loosening certain filing and regulatory requirements for start-ups and small banks. i would say the prime goal of the democratic leadership is to

reignite the american dream by building the pillars of success for small businesses, entrepreneurs, and making our economy stronger. these bills before us do help in many ways, although they are not a comprehensive jobs package, it rightly gives smaller companies and start-ups greater flexibility to grow and flourish. i urge the adoption of the rule and the underlying bills and i do want to mention the entrepreneur access to capital act which creates a new exemption from registration for crowd funding securities. it permits a company to raise up to two million a year -- $2 million a year with investors permitted to invest the lesser of 10% of its income annually in its companies and i was pleased to work with my colleague, mr. mchenry, on this bill. it has a number of others that would reduce the cost of going public and would aid in the capital formation for job

creation in our country. i do want to note that the president of the united states, his administration, is supporting these bills and i urge the passage of them. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady jeeleds back -- yields back, the gentleman from colorado reserves, the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: the gentlelady makes a good point about the president's jobs bill, except it picks winners and rusers and is hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases that will continue to kill the free enterprise system along with the other administrative things the president is doing to the free enterprise system. so this body will not pass hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases and then say we're trying to help people doing that. so the president i'm sure is entitled to his own beliefs, we are going to do the things which work, that empower the free enterprise system. i'd like to yield four minutes

to the gentleman from arizona who has brought great -- has brought great ideas to this bill and is included in this. i yield four minutes to the gentleman, mr. is week ert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. is week ert: -- mr. schweikert: i may have a unique perspective here. being on the financial services committee, we started building and moving these bills and working on them, i think as early as a year ago last march. so almost everything that's in here has been well vetted, well understood, even down to the amendments an the concepts and the discussions from the last year. and why is it important doing this jobs act an bringing it together in many ways as a single piece of legislation? it's because conceptually, they all link together. it is about capital formation. it is about those small growth

companies that create the next wave of employment. let's face it, this truly is about jobs, it is about economic growth. and the creativity we need in our economy that creates that next generation of exiretment and employment come from the types of business that need access to capital and these are the very ones that this bill moves forward. there's also another point that i hope moves universally from right to left here. i'm one of the believers that capital formation will look very different in the future. the ole days of, you go find an angel investor and find capital and go public are going to look different. some of this is buzz of dodd-frank, some of it is because of what happened in the regulatory environment. the beauty of this legislation is going to provide opportunity and options, particularly for those growing employers of small companies that want to

grow, want to employ in my home district in arizona. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: thank you, mr. speaker. if we defeat the previous question, we'll offer an amendment to the rule to provide that immediately after the house adopt this is rule, it bring up mr. bishop's bill, h.r. 1748, the taxpayer and gas price relief act and that would simply do, in addition to this bill, with broad, bipartisan support, i know there's broad bipartisan concern about gas prices, a very substantial issue that many on my side of the aisle, mr. bishop included, would like to do something about so american consumers have more of their money to take home. so to talk about his proposal, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. bishop: i thank my friend from colorado for yielding. i rise in opposition to the rule and in support of moving the previous question. this motion would amend the bill with strong provisions to

stop price gouging at the gas pumps and remove unwarranted tax subsidies from the big five oil companies. we're long overdue for a serious debate about gas prices. scoring pill points on this issue serves no one and doesn't solve the problem. here are the facts. domestic production is at an eight-year high. imports of oil are at a 17-year low. there are more oil and gas rigs drilling in the united states today than in the rest of the world combined. let me say that again. there are more oil an gas drills drilling in the united states today than in the rest of the world combine. the number of oil rigs in operation right now has quadrupled since president bush left office. last year, the u.s. became a net exporter of oil for the first time in 62 years. so clearly, rising gas prices do not result from a u.s. supply-driven problem. and this administration cannot be blamed for doing enough to

encourage and facilitate drilling. nor is rising gas prices a u.s. demand-driven problem. demand is down by 6.5% in just one year and 17% since 2008. there are several factors that contribute to rising gas prices but u.s. supply and u.s. demand are not among them. gas prices in the eastern part of my district are up over 60 cents in a matter of weeks. rampant speculation accounts for most of that with over 60% of the market controlled by speculators. the speculators' overriding goal is profit taking, which our legislation targets. nothing is wrong with profits thamplee made our nation strong. but profits should not be pursued at the expense of middle class families, nor at the expense of our fragile economic recovery this legislation make shures it doesn't by cutting out speculators. it strengthens penalties for manipulating the market which forces up gas prices and leads

to price gouging. the legislation also cuts out subsidies for big oil and we should reinvest those dollars in a long-term strategy focused on clean and renewable sources. mr. speaker, our debate should focus on a green energy policy free of market speculation and subsidy ours nation can't afford. we must tackle this problem rather than using it to point fingers and to try to score political points. thus i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question, vote no on the rule, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: at this time i'd like to yield four minutes to a man who i believe is one of the clearest thinkers in this congress. he is a bhorne studies well, applies logic, an comes out with the deduction of making things better for people who are not in this town but people who are the real part of america.

i would like to yield four minutes to the gentleman, mr. pence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for four minutes. mr. pence: i thank the gentleman for yielding, for his leadership an gracious esteem. i rise in support of h.res. 47 , the rule supporting the jobs act and the underlying bill. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: every where i go across the hoosier state, i hear job creators struggling in this economy, talking to me about the obstacles to growth, the obstacles to getting this economy moving again for their business. again and again i hear about the weight of federal red tape that stands in the way of capital formation, business expansion, and jobs. just today i was talking to a manufacturer in the state of indiana who said to me, mike, the environment in indiana is very positive. our problem is washington, d.c.

and i was able to report to him that in a bipartisan manner today, congress was going to take a small but significant step in lifting a regulatory burden on capital formation and that hoosier, like i hope all americans looking in today, was encouraged. the jobs act will actually facilitate capital formation, business expansion and growth by lifting the burden from job creators in a number of ways. it exempts certain companies from s.e.c. regulations, it exempts securities issued through innovative crowd funding sources from s.e.c. regulation. all of which in plain english means that we are going to change the regulatory environment to help startups and small businesses access public markets. i've always believed throughout more than a decade working on this floor that politics is the art of the possible. and today, we will not do

everything those of us on this side of the aisle believe we should do. -- should do to jump start this economy. but we will do what we can do in a bipartisan fashion in passing this rule and moving the bipartisan jump start our business startups or jobs act, h r. 3606. on behalf of hardworking taxpayers in indiana, on behalf of the job creator i talked to this morning, i urge my colleagues to come together in supporting the jobs act. let's give entrepreneurs an investors all across the country the incentive and regulatory relief they need to get this economy back on track. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yeels back. the gentleman from texas reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: i would like to inquire if the gentleman has any remaining speakers, the gentleman from texas? mr. sessions: i thank the gentleman for asking, we did have one person who we believe is attempting to get here to

run here, but i at this time would tell you he's not here. so i would encourage the gentleman, go ahead and close as he would choose and i would then do the same. mr. polis: thank you. i certainly extend the courtesy if the gentleman wants to yield time to his speaker in his closing. mr. sessions: i thank the gentleman very much. mr. polis: i yield myself the balance of my time. this bill here today is a good bill, an important bill. it's not a jobs solution for our country, it's not a jobs bill. in fact, i think the frustration of some is to a certain extent it represents the spinning of the wheels that typified this congress in that most of these bills have passed the house. however, if passing them again an trying to put pressure on the senate to pass them is a constructive step toward making them law, let's do it. i think a strong, bipartisan

vote of support will help do that. president obama has said he'll sign this bill. i call upon my colleagues of both sides of the aisle to support these bills. these bills help free up our capital markets in positive and constructive ways, allowing small investors the same opportunities as large investors, allowing companies a little more flexibility on remaining private over who their investors are. allowing small and mid cap companies easier access to public marketplaces. this in turn makes it easier for venture capitalists and angel funders to invest in startup companies knowing there's a better prospect of an exit should they succeed at a smaller mid cap stage. as we know, there's a number of contributing factors to the decrease in public offerings. -- offerings that's occurred over the last 10 years a trend that's beginning to reverse. one of those aspects, not the only aspect is the excess regulation we abolish through this act.

other things include the appetite of the capital markets for public offerings at any given time and ore legal and administrative risks that are not dealt with in this bill that perhaps call for additional legislation. so this is not by any stretch of the imagination a recovery or a jobs bill. but these are very constructive steps that again yes we have passed, we're passing two new ones as well, let's package them together, put pressure on the senate to send them to president obama's desk where he said he'll sign these bills. but let us not in our effort to continue to push these important pieces of legislation for capital formation forget, forget that our country faces even more important critical risks before us. we need to get serious about growing our economy. and we need to work hard on a bipartisan basis to implement real tax reform legislation,

tax reform that would create a more competitive tax code, allowing companies to reinvest in their growth rather than taking their money in an arbitrary way or encouraging them to distort the economic reality and allocation of resources by having certain tax preferences that may be in or out -- in or out of the favor of government officials. let's allow companies to invest in their own growth and encourage private sector job creation and have real corporate tax reform as the president proposed and the chair of the ways and means committee, chairman camp, has proposed and many on both sides of the aisle have proposed. i call upon our house to move forward a bill that will fundamentally make american businesses more competitive and that, mr. speaker, we can call a jobs act. what else could we call a jobs act? we can call a jobs act doing something about our national deficit, the fact that our current fiscal spegity of our nation is at stake if we do not take action over 10 or 15

years. yes, our nation faces an immense financial crisis. we need a balanced approach a big, bold, balanced approach as has been outlined by both the gang of six an the bowles-simpson commission. there are a number of people on both sides of the aisle calling for real deficit reduction, yet this house has not reduced its deficit and continued to pass an operate under a budget that simply continues these record deficits for the next 10 years. providing that certainty around the fiscal integrity of our country to allow for long-term borrowing, to ensure that businesses have access to capital and predictability over time will again do more to create jobs an grow our economy than freeing up -- and grow our economy than freeing up the capital markets in a few key areas. so yes, these bills are an important step in the right direction, including the only one truly new bill before us, the others that have already been passed by this house, this

is a good pack amming a package which is a first start to rebuilding our economy, but even after they're enacted, there's nothing that instantaneously happens, they have to be implemented, credited investors have to start buying securities, there's several years before this translate into actual job growth which it will to produce meaningful results, but corporate tax reform and showing some interest among this body of balancing our budget deficit would send an indication now to the marketplace that would immediately lead to job growth. . i also ask unanimous consent to insert the text along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote of the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. polis: i urge my colleagues to vote no and defeat the previous question. these are important bills and i strongly support the underlying bill. i encourage its passage and again encourage my colleagues to be fully aware that by passing

this bill we are not creating a single job. yes, by pressuring the senate and getting the bill to obama's desk we can eventually lead to enhancement of our capital and some job creation, but this doesn't get us off the hook. passing this bill and not balancing the budget deficit as this congress is currently doing, passing this bill and not reforming our tax code and making our corporate tax code more in line with the international standard, that's not a recipe for american competitiveness or jobs. in fact, this bill alone if it means the absence of balancing our budget and the absence of making our tax code competitive, has just been anti-jobs bill. you can't bail out a sinking ship. we need to balance our budget deficit. we need corporate tax reform, individual tax reform. i call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take those items up and, yes, as a small positive measure to help free up capital flow, particularly for start-ups and small and midcap companies, let's pass this bill now and encourage my colleagues to

support the bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. sessions clovep thank you -- mr. sessions: thank you, mr. speaker. to hear the gentleman, his strong voice not only as a entrepreneur before he came to congress but the gentleman, mr. polis, as he speaks to us in the rules committee where he talks about america wanting to have a brown-waite future, the father of a new young son. -- wanting to have a new future, the father of a new young son. i appreciate his words today. he is also correct that we do not create jobs in this town. it's the free enterprise system that does that. with that comes an equal recognition that this town gets in the way of jobs and job creation. our taxes are preparing to be raised. the president, the democratic party is all about raising taxes

on entrepreneurs and people who get up and go to work every day and small business and taking away tax code that benefits women. in particular married women with the marriage penalty. job creation through incentives that might deal with depreciation. all of these things are part of a pro-growth jobs package. and unfortunately this house is not together on that. this house is having to, as the gentleman, mr. pence said, make incremental progress as we move forward. mr. speaker, this body is big enough to be able to recognize this country's in trouble, and i don't care if you live in orlando, florida, or pensacola, florida, whether you live in dallas, texas, or whether you live in california, the needs of this great nation are about job creation and ensuring in the

competitive marketplace that we keep jobs, that we have ample credit available, that we have new ideas like we are handling today in this bill, but that we also go to some old ideas and that is when you tax companies or you tax something, you get less of it. and what -- the democratic party wants to do and the president of the united states is to tax america, the free justice department prize system, to pick winners and losers, and then to try and call that will new revenue to this country when in fact all it does is offset with higher unemployment. mr. speaker, we need a pro-growth economy. we need a pro-growth agenda from the united states congress. not just the house, but the senate also. we need the president of the united states to understand that his temptation to talk about

economic growth should be about job creation not just about picking winners and losers. we need someone who will bring this country together not attacking our free enterprise system, not standing up in front of people and saying, we can work together but actually becoming responsible enough to become engaged in legislation that will pass where we can make this country stronger. the republican party is here today on the floor leading this bill. we've got a rule which allows for 17 amendments, 13 from democrats, three from republicans, one bipartisan. once again i urge speaker john boehner, the gentleman david dreier, the chairman of the rules committee are intensely interested in having this house work in a bipartisan fashion, but making progress for american people. the american people expect us and want us to do better. today is a chance where we can work together, pass a bill, put it across the aisle to the

senate, and ask them to please join us in making life better for americans. mr. speaker, i hope all my colleagues support this rule. it's a great rule. it does the right thing. the underlying legislation is wonderful. and we would go ahead and yield our time back at this time. i ask for the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from colorado. mr. polis: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question will be postponed. pursuant to resolution 570 and rule 18, the chair declares the

house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 2842. will the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, kindly assume the duties of the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2842, which the clerk will report by tight. the clerk: a bill to authorize all bureau of reclamation conduit facilities for hydropower development under federal reclamation law, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on tuesday, march 6, 2012, amendment number 3 printed in the congressional record by the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, had been disposed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 1 printed in the congressional record by the

gentlelady from california, mrs. napolitano, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1, printed in the congressional record, offered by mrs. napolitano of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. 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.]

the chair: on this vote -- the chair: on this vote the yeas are 168. the nays are 253. the amendment is not adopted.

the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly under the rule the committee rises. is the chair: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has under consideration h.r. 2842 and pursuant to house resolution 560, report the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the

chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has under consideration the bill h.r. 2842, and pursuant to house resolution 470 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on the amendment to the amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not, the question is on adoption of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to authorize all bureau of reclamation conduit facilities for hydropower development under federal reclamation law, and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. garamendi: i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. garamendi: in its present form, yes. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. gira mendy of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 2842 to the committee on natural resources with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment, at the

end of the bill add the following, section 3, make it in america. any lease or power privilege offered pursuant to this act or amendments made by this act shall require that all material used for conduit hydropower generation be manufactured in the united states. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members will please take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, my colleagues, those of you that are addicted to late night c-span, you may have noticed this placard which we have used for the last year. if you're not addicted to late night c-span, then let me inform

you what this is all about. this is about rebuilding the american manufacturing sector. >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. members are encouraged to take their conversations off the floor. mr. gira mendy: thank you -- mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. if america is going to make it, then we must once again make it in america. and this is about government policy. this is about the policies that you and i have the opportunity to make here in america so that this great nation can once again become the great manufacturing center of the world. none of us --

the speaker pro tempore: gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. mr. garamendi: is there any one of us in this room that wants to concede american manufacturing to china, to any other place in the world? is there one of us in this world that's willing to give up the opportunity for this nation to once again be the pride of this world when it comes to making things? gentlemen and ladies, it's all about policy. it's about the policy that we write here in the halls of congress. it's about how we structure our tax policy, how we structure our employment policy, our educational policy. it's about the laws that we make. don't think this is industrial policy -- isn't just policy that's new. it's not. george washington turned to his secretary of treasury and told mr. hamilton, i want an

industrial policy for america and hamilton came back with eight specific things that needed to be done at the very birth of this nation to build the american manufacturing sector. and from that start -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. >> i'm having trouble hearing him because the members are talking. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman deserves to be heard. this is an important issue. the house will be in order. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. hoyer, thank you, through the chair. thank you. so, george washington set out an industrial policy put in place laws to build the great -- start of the great american manufacturing renaissance. but let's look what happened. this chart's not a happy chart. this chart's about the decline.

beginning in the 1970's we began to see the decline of american manufacturing as policies that were written by this house, by the senate, signed by presidents, democrat and republican, change the groundwork upon which our manufacturing sector could be built. and so we began the decline from 19,000, almost 20 million americans, californians -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. mr. hoyer: i would ask the gentleman to suspend until the house becomes in order and stays in order. mr. garamendi: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. garamendi: 25 years ago 20 million americans were in the manufacturing sector. 25 years ago the american middle class was strong and vibrant and growing, prosperous, able to own a home, able to take care of their family, go on vacation,

fish, whatever. 25 years ago. today just over 11 million americans are in the manufacturing sector. and if you were to chart where the middle class is in america, it follows almost exactly this same curve downward. we have an opportunity today to do one small thing, one small thing to put in place a policy that will once again lead us back to making it in america, back to rebuilding our manufacturing sector. and we can do it here with this amendment that i proposed. it's not going to solve all the problems and it's not going to employ millions, but if you happen to live in new mexico, you may want to know that the elephant beauty irrigation -- butte irrigation district has a small hydrofacility and able to build in america a hydrofacility. they cobbled it together on their own. if you happen to be from washington, specifically dening,

washington, you may know that the canyon hydrobuilds small hydroprojects and programs and materials. if you happen to be from alameda, california, listen up, my 52 other californians, nitel energy builds small hydros. if you're from ohio, much discussed these last couple days, springfield, builds small hydros. we can make it in america. this amendment simply says that any company that applies for one of these small hydroprojects must use american made equipment. must use american made equipment. this is how we rebuild american manufacturing sector. piece by piece, law by law, laws like this that require in the public works that we buy

america, that we build america, and that we return the great american middle class back to where it should be, at the top of the heap not at the bottom and not declining. so, gentlemen and ladies, it's up to us. this is our policy opportunity. in one small way, in one small hydroproject, to simply say, do it. but use american-made equipment. we can once again make it in american and americans can make it when we have policies in place. mr. speaker, i ask for an aye vote on this important small critical amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the house will please come to order.

members are reminded to take their conversations off the floor. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i first want to note that the author of the motion to recommit voted for the bill out of committee without this amendment. so certainly there's some basis of support for this amendment, but i find it very, very ironic that we continue to have what i consider impediments to job creation in this country made by the other side. because the other side has generally, not everybody to the credit of some of those that understand energy creation, but generalry they oppose all american energy. . look at the vote of developing resources in the outer continental shelf. look at the vote of developing resources in alaska. look at the vote of developing resources in the intermountain west. they have always been generally opposed to it on that side of the aisle. so now we have here in front of us a bill that would create american energy, and they want

to put another qualification on it. now, the gentleman, as a matter of fact, in the debate he did somewhat mischaracterize because the amendment says materials. materials. we don't mind, for example, one example, all -- for high-tech nology. he would have us import it. mr. garamendi: will the gentleman yield? mr. hastings: mr. speaker, let me tell you what this bill does. mr. garamendi: will the gentleman yield? mr. hastings: i will not yield. the gentleman had five minutes to make his case. let me tell you what this bill does. this bill creates american jobs with american energy at no cost to the taxpayer. what else do you need to say? vote against the motion to recommit. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on the motion

to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. garamendi: request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on the passage of the bill if ordered, ordering the previous question on house resolution 572 and adoption of house resolution 522 if ordered. 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.]

the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. hastings: i call for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device.

[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 --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 265. the nays are 154.

the bill is agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 572 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 117, house resolution 572, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3606, to increase american job creation and economic growth by improving access to public capital markets for emerging growth companies. 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 244. the nays are 177.

the motion is agreed to. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, thank you. it is my great pleasure to stand with my colleagues, eric paulson, mr. quigley, mr.

bucshon and mr. higgins in a true bipartisan fashion to deliver to the exciting news that this team, skating together, is part of the congressional hockey caucus. after a two-year absence on sunday at the verizon center won back the important cup in a victory 5-3 over the lobbyists. now, it's tough enough skating together, but quigley's awfully chippy and we have to watch his back, there's no question about that. mr. speaker, this is a great game for the spirit of the conference, but in all honesty -- the true value of this game is it is a charity. and with the great cooperation and support of the national hockey league and the washington capitals and the

owner, we were able to raise in excess of $160,000, and those dollars first will be dedicated to support a program the national hockey league has which is hockey is for everyone and that is to bring the game of hockey to inner city youth which otherwise would not have an opportunity. more significantly, mr. speaker, in cooperation with the national hockey league and for the first time there has been a commitment that has been made. part of these proceeds will be matched with commitments that will with galy bettman, the commissioner of the national hockey league, to support scholarships now for the thurogood marshall scholarship fund, to the college fund. they will help support four-year scholarships to one of the historically 47

historically black colleges and universities for inner city youth. so we are grateful and i'll turn it over to my friend, mr. quigley. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the lobbyists for the game. nick, who helped organize it. the game did get a little chippy. that's true. but it has no connection with the 20-point lobbying reform measure we are putting out tomorrow. i also want to thank the staff who helped carry all their team of guys. our captain right over here for helping us win this game and bring back the cup and beat back. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, five-minute voting will continue. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor will signify by

saying aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. polis: on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, 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 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 252, the nays are 166. the resolution is agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 3606 and to insert extraneous materials therein. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 5 2 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3606. the chair appoints the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3606 which the clerk will report by

title. the clerk: a bill to increase american job creation and economic growth by improving access to the capital markets for emerging growth companies. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time. the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: mr. speaker, i yield myself four minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. bachus: i rise in strong support of the jobs act and urge my house colleagues to approve this bill with overwhelming bipartisan support. this is a legislative package that we believe will help jump start our economy by creating new growth opportunities for america's small businesses, for startup companies, and for entrepreneurs. as chairman of the financial services committee, i'm happy to report to the house that the

jobs act is comprised of six bills that originated in our committee and were approved by the committee. i'm also proud that these six bills received overwhelming, strong bipartisan support in our committee and it shows that republicans and democrats can come together, find common ground, and work together to help america's small businesses. in fact, being approved by the financialer is -- after being approved by financial services committee, several of these bills moved to the house floor and gained almost annapolis approval from the house -- almost unanimous approval from the house and are now in the senate. not only do they have support of republicans and democrats, but we received a letter, i think i have a copy of that letter, from the president this morning, march 6, endorsing this legislation, strongly

endorsing it. it's not only -- it not only has the support of republicans, democrats, but also of the president. and the leadership. consistent observation i think i've heard and many others have heard is that our -- from our business community, is that the federal government is making it hard for them to expand and hire new workers with all its new regulations, mandates, and spending, as well as those not so new regulations. we've not recovered from this recession as quickly as we have from past recessions and the reason is we have not gotten the job growth we had hoped and the job growth we have gotten has been from large corporations. the difference in this recovery and the last one is not large companies not hiring, they are. it's small companies not hiring. there are two reasons small companies aren't hiring.

these are small companies that generate traditionally 65% to 70% of the new jobs. the first is regulation. the second is capital. it's harder for these companies to get traditional bank financing, we all know that. we've talked to bankers, we've talked to small businesses. because they can't always get bank financing, they must turn to investors and to the capital market. and these bipartisan measures will make it easier for them to do that. they'll increase capital formation, which -- that spurs the growth in startup companies, creates jobs, and encourages companies, small companies, to add jobs and to invest. we know that, as i said, small businesses are the generators of our economy. in fact, large corporations, 70% to 80% of their business is from small businesses.

that's why we as congress, hearing from our constituents, must cut the red tape that prevents our small businesses and entrepreneurs, the same people that created google that created apple, that created a lot of our biotech companies, which are today, they were small businesses, now they're the growth businesses. they're creating the most jobs. this legislation will give them the freedom to access capital and hire workers and grow jobs. i want to commend and i want to talk about just one of these bills, that's the bill that came out of our committee with strong bipartisan support and i want to commend three gentlemen, the gentlemen -- the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher, the gentleman fromman from delaware mr. carney and mr. hines. it allow -- mr. himes. it allows companies to capitalize.

thank you, mr. speaker, for the time you've given me. i yield back the balance -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i recognize a member not on the committee but someone who has pushed for this bill. ms. eshoo. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. eshoo: i thank the ranking member, mr. frank. i'm pleased to rise in support of h.r. 1070, which is a provision, actually a bill, that is contained in the underlying legislation which we're going to be voting on today. i want to pay tribute to mr. frank because he recognized the worth of the idea of expanding on regulation a, which was part of the securities act of 1933,

he was more than interested in the idea, he said, come and testify on it. which i did in december of 2010. so i was proud to do that, both sides of the aisle at that hearing were -- became heavily engaged in it. they were fascinated by what it was, what it could do, relative to capital formation. so now, this bipartisan bill, which passed the house in november of this last year, 421-1, is -- 421 to one is now in this bill. it increases the offering limit under the s.e.c. regulation a which, as i think i said, was enacted in the great depression to facilitate the flow of capital to small businesses. look at the genius of f.d.r. a reformed regulation a is important for small businesses and startups, not only in my

district but across the country. this is especially true in high tech, sustainable energy and the life sciences fields where research and development startup costs routinely exceed $5 million. and in 2010, only seven companies actually took advantage of it. so i'm very pleased that this is part of this overall legislation. i salute the ranking member, mr. frank, for recognizing it, for supporting it early on, and for getting the ball rolling at his committee with a member that was not a member of his committee and i think that the country is going to win with this provision and i'm proud to support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. without objection, the gentleman from texas will control the time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. >> i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for three minutes. mr. hensarling: it is clear that jobs and the economy are issue number one for our constituents. many don't see the recovery. even though professional economists may see it, it is clearly the slowest and weakest recovery in the post-war era. we still have three full years of 8%-plus unemployment, half of our population now being classified as either low income or in poverty. again, our constituents are demanding jobs. public policy makes a difference. republicans have many disagreements with our president over public policy. we disagree with the $11 trillion of additional debt he has put into his budget. we disagree with the $1.9 trillion in new tax increase he is wants to impose, much of it on small businesses. we disagree, we believe the keystone pipeline, with its

20,000 shovel ready jobs, should be approved. we believe these policies harm job growth and the economy. but mr. chairman, we have a rare occasion today, that is, there is something we do agree on. we have found an opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis on common ground with the president of the united states. the president said, quote, it is time to cut away the red tape that prevent taos many rapidly growing startup companies from raising capital and going public. house republicans agree. thus we are happy to bring to the floor on a bipartisan basis the jobs act. the president has issued his statement of administration policy. endorsing this legislation. again, a rare occurrence and i believe it's something that our constituents would like to see us do. they want to see us stand on principle but they also want to see us compromise on policies to advance those principles.

so this is a bill that will give these emerging growth companies, again, perhaps the future googles, perhaps the future apples, the future home depots, the future starbucks, that opportunity to now begin to access equity capital, where the hurdles, the red tape, the cost burdens have been too high. we know of many of the root causes of the economic debacle we had, clearly this was an economy that was overleveraged. so we in the congress need to do whatever we can to enable the startup companies, the job engines of america, to be able to access the equity markets, not just the debt markets. so this is a bill, most of which has been previously approved by large majorities, either in the financial services committee or on the floor. i want to thank the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher, for his leadership, chairman gause, leader cantor, the rank

-- chairman bachus, leader cantor, the american people want to see jobs, hope, opportunity, let's pass the jobs act and let's pass it now. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. frank: i yield myself a minute to ai ea great that my friend from texas felt the need to resolve -- absolve himself from bipartisanship by engaging in a partisan diatribe that was factually shaky. it is true this recovery has been slower than any previous one, but that's because the economy barack obama inherited from george bush was the -- was the weakest since the great depression. it was a deeper economic down fall under george bush than we've had in 80 years, that's why the recovery was slower. if you look at the chart recently shown by ben bernanke,

you see a steep loss in jobs in the last couple of years of the bush administration and less than two months after barack obama took office, and we were able to begin some politycies to stimulate the economy, an equally sharp rise. so we haven't come as far back as we would like to but that's because we were so deeply in the hole when we started. now i yield two minutes, the gentleman from delaware, mr. carney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. carney: i rise to encourage all my colleagues, democrats and republicans, to support this important piece of legislation to create jobs. in december, repive fincher and i introduced h.r. 3606, the reopening american capital markets to growth act of 2011. today our legislation is the vehicle for a package of bills to help small businesses access

capital and grow. i'd also like to recognize mr. fincher and hi staff for their bipartisan work on this bill. i would also like to thank ranking member frank and representative waters for their assistance and leadership throughout this process. the original bill, 3606, which is contained in the bill today, before us, will create jobs -- jobs in part by making it easier for emerging growth companies to undertake i.p.o.'s and go public. on average, research tells us that 92% of a company's growth, job growth, occurs after they go public. but in recent year the number of companies going public has fallen off dramatically. this legislation takes a commonsense approach to reduce the cost of going public for the so-called onramp companies by phasing in, not exempting, but phasing in certain costly

regulatory requirements. our bill creates a new category of issuers called emerging growth company. they have annual revenues of less than $1 billion following the initial public offering, less than $700 million in publicly traded shares. exemption for these on-ramp status companies would either be after the -- after five years or when the company reaches $1 billion in rev thue or $700 million in public. it would make it easier for investors to get access in advance of an i.p.o. and this is an issue rarned which there's been quite a bit of discussion in committee. this is critical, though, for small and medium-sized companies trying to raise capital that have less visible in the marketplace. last month, these provisions were passed out of the financial services committee with a bipartisan vote of 54-1.

we worked hard to craft this legislation that could garner support from democrats and republicans and that can pass both the house and the senate and as you heard earlier, it's supported by the administration, in fact, many of the ideas in this bill were generated out of a process started by the treasury department itself. making it easier for small and medium-sized companies to grow is an effective way to improve the economy. we all know how important that is for the constituents that we serve. this legislation will encourage more entrepreneurs to start businesses and allow more startups to become public companies and grow and create jobs. please join me in supporting h.r. 3606. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: mr. chairman, i now yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. quayle: i thank the

gentleman for yielding. mr. chairman, i rise in support of h.r. 3606, the jump-start our business startups act. the bill will do just that, jump-start our small business by removing outdated costly requirements so businesses and community banks can grow, invest and hire again. i want to thank chairman bachus for including my legislation, the capital expansion act, in the jobs act. our economy is being held back by onerous and outdated regulations that keep small community banks from expanding, by making it easier for banks to raise capital, invest in our nation's small businesses, our entire economy benefits. this legislation is essential to small businesses and will allow them greater access to necessary capital. community banks make up 11% of the banking industry's assets in america, but they provide 40% of all loans to small businesses. currently, community banks with 500 or more shareholders must register with the s.e.c. and in so doing submit to the costly comblines requirements.

the -- compliance requirements. this bill would raise the threshold and lower compliance costs for our community banks. under this act, a bank would be able to expand to 2,000 shareholders before having to register with the s.e.c. this will lower compliance costs for the average community bank by $250,000 annually. that $250,000 can be linked to small businesses or used to expand its operations. i've been concerned about these issues addressed by this act since i came to congress and it is gratifying to these solutions being put forward. i am particularly grateful for mr. fincher for his leadership on h.r. 3606 which addresses the high cost of compliance of sex 404 of sarbanes-oxley. as i have been meeting with small businesses within my district, i have been engaged in trying to roll back the costly regulations on our startups imposed by sarbanes-oxley. i ask my colleagues to support the jobs act and i yield back the balance of my time.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: madam chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frank: i now have an answer to a question. there was a bill in this package, h.r. 4088, that had never had a hearing, it had never been to our committee. everything else had been through the process, and i ask the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, about it. he represented the rules committee. he said it was a good bill and therefore there was no need to go through a hearing, subcommittee or committee. that struck me as odd. i never heard that from before, particularly from a party who said they want to have regular order. but now that the gentleman from arizona has spoken, let me make a confession, madam chair. i was being a little disengine with us. let -- disingenuous. let me say, you can't be disingenuous to the rules.

i know what 404 is. we heard the gentleman from arizona talk about his legislation. his legislation is the bill i was referring to. it was introduced on february 24, i believe, of this year. it had no hearing. it had no subcommittee markup, but it sounded very familiar as he described it because that's not just a bill, it's a shape shifter. it used to be the hines-schweikert bill. we did have this in committee and subcommittee. it wasn't the quayle bill. there wasn't a quayle bill then. this bill had been the product of bipartisan collaboration between the gentleman from connecticut, mr. himes, and the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert. so what happened? apparently the republican leadership decided it was

christmas in march so they stole the bill from mr. schweikert and mr. himes and made a present of it to the gentleman from arizona, mr. quayle. and mr. quayle, i must say, is -- someone told him, be grateful. when they took the bill from the two men who had created it and took it away from them so that the gentleman from arizona could get the credit for a bill which he had done no work, he seemed perfectly happy with it. now i want to say, mr. chairman, i have been here for 31 1/2 years. i am about not to be here anymore. i have thought very much about what i am about to say. that's shameful. shameful on the part of the republican leadership that engaged in this cheap maneuver. shameful on the part of a member who would be the beneficiary of it. i am deeply disappointed. yeah, it was a good bill.

it was a good bill when it was the himes-schweikert bill. it was a good bill when it was in the subcommittee. to have it taken away and credit given to someone who had nothing to do with it previously is a bad idea. and then for the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions, on behalf of the rules committee, he did not want to admit this theft. so instead he announced a new principle and i hope we can now be clear it's not going to be a new precedent, it's a good bill and short bill it doesn't have to go to a hearing, it doesn't have to go through subcommittee, it doesn't have to go through committee. that was the defense the gentleman from texas made because he was to his credit embarrassed to acknowledge the truth. but having understood that that was the truth, i do want to make it clear it would have been better if he had not pretended, as it seems to me he did, that this was such a wonderful bill, it didn't need to go through the procedure, but rather admit it was a bill that had gone through the procedure but had been kidnapped along the way and brought here under another member.

as i say, i am very disappointed in a leadership that would do this and a member that would accept credit for a bill with which he had so little to do. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i yield myself 10 seconds to say that the american people care about jobs and economic growth, not a john grisham novel of intrigue. either the gentleman, the ranking member, like the policy and which case he can vote for it. if he doesn't like the policy he can vote against it. the president of the united states apparently supports it. at this time i would yield three minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher, the author of the jobs act. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for three minutes. mr. fincher: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i want to thank my colleague, mr. carney, for his hard work and his staff for helping work on something good for the country, for the private sector, getting people back to work and that's what we were

sent here to do. i'm pleased to be the lead co-sponsor or sponsor on h.r. 3606, the jump-start our business startups act. today, according to the bureau of labor statistics, the unemployment rate is currently 8.3%. however, in december last year, all but one of the counties i represent had a higher unemployment rate than the national average of 8.5%. at the top of the list was obine county with an unemployment rate of 15.3% and crockett county, where i live, 10.5%. it's no secret that our nation has seen a decline in small business startups over the last few years which means less jobs created for american workers. i think we can all agree that small businesses and entrepreneurs are the backbone of our nation and our economy. the heartbeat of america is in the heartland of america, not here in washington. the best thing our government can do right now to get our economy moving in the right direction is to help create an

environment where new ideas and startup companies have a chance to grow and succeed. the provisions in the jobs act would put the focus on the private sector, capitalism in the free market providing the jump-start our small business needs. title 1 is something i introduced with mr. carney, the emerging companies to grow act. fewer and fewer startups have pursued initial public offerings because of burdensome costs created by a series of one-size-fits-all laws and regulations. these changes have driven up costs and uncertainty for young companies looking to go public. not going public deprives company the need for capital to expand their business, develop innovative products and hire more american workers. title 1 would create a new category called emerging growth companies that have less than $1 billion in annual revenues when they register with the

s.e.c. and less than $700 million in public float after the i.p.o. emerging growth companies will have five years to transition to full compliance with a variety of regulations that are expensive and burdensome. this onramp status will allow small and immediate-sized companies the opportunity to save on expensive compliance costs and create the cash needed to successfully grow their businesses and create american jobs. it will also make it easier for potential investors to get public access to research and company information in advance of an i.p.o. in order to make an informed decision about investing. this is critical for small and medium-sized companies trying to raise capital that have less visibility in the marketplace. our bill has tremendous bipartisan support when passed by the financial services committee two weeks ago, and it's my hope that we can continue to work together as we move this bill forward.

madam chair, the jobs act -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. fincher: i urge my colleagues to support this bill. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: madam chair, i yield myself 15 second. the gentleman from texas says the american people don't care about this entry. then the question is why are they involved in it? why don't they leave it with the sponsors? apparently they care enough to play that double game. i now yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. maloney. the chair: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman and i rise to support h.r. 3606 which would help startups and small businesses succeed and create jobs during this economic recovery, and i want to really congratulate and thank the ranking member for his leadership along with the administration during the worst

recession during the great -- after the great depression. christina romert testified before this congress that the economic shock to our economy was three times greater than the great depression. we were shedding over 700,000 jobs a month when the president assumed office, and in a report by chairman bernanke, he showed a chart where we are digging our way out under his leadership. we have gained 3.7 million private sector jobs. this is an important step forward, and the financial reform bill that chairman -- ranking member barney frank -- we are going to miss you, barney. we owe you a debt of gratitude during this time. but what we need now is a real jobs bill, not tweaking around

the corners with a few words and few changes mountain securities law. what we should be debating today, which would have a huge impact on jobs, is the transportation bill or the president's american jobs act which would create more than half a million jobs and move us forward and this particular bill, the package is important but it is not a comprehensive jobs bill or agenda which we need. there are some modest steps forward, but they are no substitute for a major job-creating highway bill or a passage of the full american jobs act. these bills make only very modest changes for startup companies, making it easier for them to raise capital through the internet and solicitation of accredited investors and listing certain filing and regulatory requirements for startups and banks. i support it but it does not really do a great deal to

create more jobs which we need. i must say that i have co-sponsored parts of it, and four of them have already passed this body overwhelmingly with over 300 votes, and i'd like to note that the administration supports the passage of this act, as congress clearly has already done. and i do want to join the chairman in speaking in support of my colleague, mr. himes and schweikert on the committee. they championed the provision of the bill that raises the shareholder threshold for having to register with the s.e.c. and this title passed this body on its own already by 420-2 margin. that's quite an achievement for them. but by putting another person's name on it we have a clear example of the majority more interested in scoring points than working in a bipartisan way for job development. i ask unanimous consent to place in the record further

comments on these bills and their importance and my work with mr. mchenry on funding. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. that request will be covered under general leave. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hep sar ling: i yield myself 10 seconds to say -- mr. hensarling: i yield myself 10 seconds to say, president reagan once said, it doesn't matter who get this is the credit. it seems like our friends on the other side are saying, if we don't get credit, we're going to pick up our toys and go home. i yield two minutes to mrs. biggert. the chair: the gentlelady veck niced for two minutes. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. when it comes to promoting economic growth, no government program is as effective as the ole-fashioned drive and ingenuity of the hardworking american people. but to harness that power and

the jobs that come with it, we need to clear a path for the startups and pledging businesses that bring new goods an ideas into the marketplace. that's the purpose of the jobs act. this jobs package includes several bills that i've had the opportunity to work on closely with think colleagues on the house financial services committee. altogether, it includes six bipartisan proposals that the committee has reviewed to streamline or eliminate the regulatory and legal barriers that prevent emerging businesses from reaching out to investors, accesses -- accessing capital and selling shares to the public market. this legislation will make it possible for promising businesses to go public and access financial opportunities that currently are littled to large corporations. and it eliminates needless costs and delays imposed by the

s.e.c. and other regulators. these ideas are not political. these ideas are not partisan. they come from the small business community in districts like mine, where i meet regularly with local employees who tell me that accessing capital is the hardest part of enduring the recession. many of these changes trk charges have bipartisan backing and have been endorsed by members of the president's council on jobs and economic competitiveness. madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this important jobs package and unite behind good ideas that will free american businesses to do what they do best. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. frank: i yield myself 30 seconds to say i have never seen truth stood on its head more rapidly than by my colleague from texas he accused us to be too concerned about

credit and said i and my friends. i'm glad to say the republican member from arizona is someone i consider a friend, mr. swikeert, and he's one from whom it was stolen. if that's what they believe, why take the credit from mr. is week ert and mr. -- mr. schweikert and mr. himes and give toyota mr. quayle. it is they who decided credit is more important. for the gentleman from texas to now accuse of being excessively concerned with credit is the most hypocritical and dishonest statement i have heard uttered in this house. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. hensarling: i ask that the gentleman's words be taken down. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts will please take a seat. the clerk will report the words.

the chair: the committee will be in order. the clerk will report the words. the clerk: mr. frank of massachusetts, i have never seen truth stood on its head more rapidly than my colleague from texas. this notion that who cares about credit if that were honestly what the republican leadership believed, why did they take the credit from mr. schweikert and mr. himes and give it to mr. quayle? it is they who decides that

substance is less than important. from the gentleman from texas having been part of the leadership that engaged in this shameful maneuver to accuse us of being excessively concerned with credit is the most hypocritical and dishonest statement i have heard in this house. the chair: the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 3606 when certain words used in debate from objective to and on request were taken down and read at the clerk's desk, and i herewith report the same to the house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that during consideration of h.r. 3606 certain words used in debate were objected to and on request were taken down and read at the

clerk's desk and now reports the words objected to to the house. the clerk will report the words objected to in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union. the clerk: mr. frank of massachusetts, i have never seen the truth stood on its head more rapidly than my colleague from texas. this notion that who cares about credit, if that were honestly what the republican leadership believes, why did they take the credit from mr. schweikert and mr. himes and give it to mr. quayle? it is they who decide that substance was less than important. from the gentleman from texas having been part of the leadership that engaged in this shameful maneuver to accuse us of being excessively concerned with credit is the most hypocritical and dishonest statement i have heard in this house. the speaker pro tempore: the chair finds that the remarks constitute a personality directed toward an individual member. without objection, the offending words are stricken from the record. the committee will resume its sitting.

the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 3606 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to increase american job creation and economic growth by improving access to the public capital markets for emerging growth companies. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, 31 1/2 minutes remained in general debate. the gentleman from texas, mr. hensarling, has 15 1/2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank, has 16 minutes remaining. the chair will be recognizing the gentlewoman from california. ms. waters: thank you very much. i recognize myself for four minutes.

the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for four minutes. ms. waters: madam chair, i rise today in support of h.r. 3606, the jump-start our business startups act. before i begin my remarks, i would like to thank chairman bachus, chairman garrett and certainly ranking member frank for their assistance and support for this bill. we were able to work in a bipartisan manner on this bill and our committee, passing many of the provisions in the bill, with strong bipartisan majorities. h.r. 3606 is an omnibus package of small business capital formation bills, some of which was already passed through the house back in november. i was pleased to work with representative mccarthy on a provision now included in the bill to amend securities law, to remove the prohibition on general solicitation or general advertising for office of

securities made under rule 506 of regulation d. if those securities are only sold to accredited investors. last year i worked with representative mchenry to add critical investor provisions to this crowdfunding bill which previously passed the house and is now included in this package. i was also pleased to support the provision from representatives schweikert to allow companies to raise more funds through the regulation a process, and another provision, to raise minimum shareholder threshold at which companies must register their securities with the s.e.c. on the title of this bill dealing with the emerging growth companies, i.p.o.'s, i support the goal of this legislation, and i hope that many of the amendments offered today on this title are accepted, including my own dealing with the provision of research. again, i'm supportive of this

legislation but think that more investor protection provisions are needed. why did we work together to get this legislation passed? we worked from both sides of the aisle because we're all concerned about job creation and access to capital. we have gone through a recession in this country, starting with the loans that were made in the subprime market, 2003 to 2007, we reached this recession, almost reached a depression, and we destroyed the housing industry in this country. and so we are all working to try and not only get the housing industry revitalized but we are also working to make sure that our small businesses have access to capital and thus job creation. so i'm very pleased that we were able to work together on

this legislation despite the fact that what mr. frank brought to our attention today is the kind of efforts that could interfere with attempts to have bipartisanship on some of these legislative attempts that we have. what congressman frank brought to our attention was that title 6 of the bill, a provision that was drafted by representative himes, with the support of republicans, seems to have been very minimally reworked and rebranded as a representative quayle bill. while i support the provision, i think that taking mr. himes' work product undermines the spirit of bipartisanship, cooperation and otherwise -- that was otherwise demonstrated by this bill. do i like every one of these bills 100%? no, i don't. i have some concerns and i have

some questions, and i even have some uncertainty when we talk about crowdfunding. i want to make sure that we're protecting the investors. i want to make sure that the proper research is isolated from the underwriters who have connections to those people that they're writing the bills for, and so in summing up this bill -- respectfully request 30 more seconds. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. waters: it will make it just a bit easier for some companies to raise funds in our capital markets, enabling to grow their businesses. but make no mistake, i believe this congress still needs to do more on jobs. in addition to these legislative changes that enable capital formation, we need to keep teachers, police officers and firefighters on the job, extend unemployment insurance for laid off workers and revitalize neighborhoods devastated by foreclosures. a truly comprehensive approach is needed to get americans working again, and i hope my colleagues are willing to work with me on these issues.

i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: the gentlelady alluded to the gentleman brought to our attention, he broke house rules and is prohibited from speaking the rest of the tai. at this time i'm happy to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. dole. mr. dold: thank you, madam chairman. i want to thank my good friend from texas for yielding me the time. as a small business owner, i understand firsthand what small businesses are facing today when they try to meet a payroll or budget. try to expand their business. to try to hire an extra workers. my small business employees -- employs about 100 people, about 100 families.

it's a responsibility i take very seriously. across our country, we've got 29 million small businesses throughout our nation. we should be doing everything we can, everything within our power, to create an environment to allow those small businesses to hire one more workers. that's why i'm pleased today to stand up and voice my support nor bipartisan jobs act on the floor today. many of the bills in this package passed the house with over 400 votes each. today we hear a lot about gridlock, we hear about partisanship. this is bipartisan bills. 400 bills, 400 votes here in the united states congress, sent over to the united states senate, without action, i'm glad we are able to package them today to have another crack at that. these measures were introduced by republicans and democrats and are aimed to allow small businesses to have access to capital. this is the type of legislation the united states senate should be passing the president should sign into law. this week we're sending another

message to the united states senate an we urge them to take action on important matters. these are bipartisan bills. our small businesses and hardworking families done have the luxury of waiting for gridlock in washington to en. specifically in the united states senate. we sent over 30 jobs bills from this body to the united states senate without any action. so it's time i ask that the senate join the house in acting on these issues to empower small business owners an job creators, i believe that bipartisanship is extremely important ant when we find common ground we must act. that's why it's critical that we empower job creators and small business owners to spur our economy and get america back to work. the jobs act is an example of how to put people before politics and people before partisanship. which is why i'm delighted to support this bill an thank my colleagues, mr. carney an my friend from fincher. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the minority whip, mr. steny hoyer, three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for yielding and rise in strong support of the six pieces of legislation that have been put together and called a jobs bill. ic they'll have a pozzive effect on economic growth in our country. particularly support the himes bill, currently called the quayle bill, but i'm pleased to support it, by whoever's name it might have on it. four out of the six components of the legislation have been previously considered and passed overwhelmingly so this is a recycle but doing a good thing twice is not bad. so i'm going to vote for it. i'll be enthusiastic about voting for it. i suggested number of these ideas on our side of the aisle. this bill makes it easier for small businesses to go public an ray the capital they need to expand and hire new workers by

reducing regulatory burdens and raises the s.e.c. threshold to free up bank capital for lending to small businesses an individuals. that's an important step to be taking. a number of my democratting colleagues worked hard on these provisions, including as i said earlier representative james himes of connecticut who introduced one of these bills months and months ago. it passed 420-2 on this body. he has been a leader on this issue of small business access to capital and i congratulate him for his efforts. i'm glad the republican leadership is bringing this bill to the floor. and i hope it signals a new willingness to work with us to create jobs. this bill is called a jobs bill. catchy title. i sort of referred to it as the

just old bills bill. but they are good bills, and doing a good thing twice an hoping the senate will pass it, and i hope the senate does pass all these bills and this bill as a package. but make no mistake about it, madam speaker, and america, madam speaker, should make no doubt about it, this is not the jobs bill america needs. not tweaking around the edges. not pretending that we have put something together that's going to create a significant number of jobs. this will help and in the longer term it will create jobs. i'm for it. i think it's a positive step forward. but make no mistake about it. this is not the jobs bill that the president asked for, this is not the jobs bill that america needs. this is not the jobs bill that millions who are unemployeded and can't find employment are crying out for in america. america needs a comprehensive jobs plan to help get the millions who have lost jobs and are still look for work.

this bill alobe is simply not enough. we must do more and i will tell my friend, and he is my friend, from texas, aisle prepared to work with him. on a real jobs bill. this is a real jobs bill. but you and i both know it's a small bore jobs bill. that doesn't make it bad. doesn't make it -- can i have 10 additional seconds to conclude my thought? it doesn't mean we shouldn't pass it. i thank you for bringing it to the floor but let us not delude america or deceive ourselves that this is the jobs bill that we need to be passing and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i yield myself 10 seconds simply to respond to my friend that we have tried the president's jobs bill, the stimulus, the health care package, dodd-frank, yet we still have the highest duration of 8%-plus unemployment since the great depression.

here's at least a bipartisan bill we can work on and i look forward to that today. at this point, i yield two minutes to the chairman of the capital marks subcommittee, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. garrett: thank you, madam chair and i thank the gentleman from texas. i rise to express support for the jobs act today. i strongly believe that the jobs act will ease the burden on capital formation, on the entrepreneurial growth companies that have traditionally served as the u.s. economy's primary job creators and provide a larger pool of investors with access to information and investment options on these companies that currently doesn't exist. with venture capital fun raising stagnant and closed off, those who can't have access to capital markets have been forced to lay research on medical, scientific and technological breakthroughs aside. that's her our economy and global competitiveness because emerging companies need

capital. developing ned call cures to help people live longer, hellier, more productive lives needs capital. developing technologies to improve the speed of communication needs capital. developing alternative energy technologies to reduss our dependence on foreign sources requires capital. so with the passage of this bill, we'll provide those companies with innovative and creative, it's essential to keeping companies competitive with a costesquive means to access that capital and keep this country at the forefront of medical, scientific and technological breakthroughs. economic growth ocurse when companies go public. recently, i met with -- with the new jersey technology council who stressed the importance of removing regulatory burdens and bringing companies to invest in the market. the jobs bill does that it restores innovation to provide the capital that american

entrepreneurs immediate. we do this by chipping away at the albatross of regular rages that's strangled and held back the i.p.o. market since the passage of the sarbanes-oxley raw. this bill provides american -- law. this bill provides american intrep muirs with the cap tl to go after and seek their dreams. it provides investors with the capital they knee to make dreams a reality. i believe this is a common sense bill and support this legislation before us. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield to the gentleman from connecticut, mr. himes, three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. himes: thank you, madam chair. i rise today very excited about what we are about to do on this floor. as has been said over the course of many hours, we are about to pass legislation that will be good for the core strength of this country, for our entrepreneurs, for our small banks that we trust to

provide credit in our communities. this is a good bill. i'm sorry that it's been mar by a couple of things that have been the topic of much discussion today. i'm sorry the republican majority has used the debate to promote the canard, not my word, bruce bartlett's words, which i think means baloney, that the problem are leags. bartlett said regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by republicans to allow them to use current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the business community year in and year out. we have an obligation to make sure our regulation is good, that it seeps us safe, that it kirpse banks alive without quashing the entrepreneurship an economic vitality. with herbed do that every day. but what we have heard, the

ideology, this notion that the problem in our economy is what bruce bartlett calls it, a canard. i'm sorry this bill has been spoiled by the antics of the republican majority. i'm thrilled this bill includes h.r. 1965. at the end of the day, i mentioned reagan, reagan said, you get a lote done in washington, d.c. if you didn't care who gets the credit. there may be only one way to spell potato but there are a lot of ways to skin a cat. if year going to skin this cat this way, i'm ok with that because small banks need the flexibility to go public when they should go public. because we should for those companies who want to go public provide them with some relief from the regulations that might be more appropriate for larger companies. all of these things that we have passed, many of these measures on the floor, are

important. marred though it has been by the antics of the republican majority, this is fundamentally a bipartisan, good bill and it is a rare step forward for this house of representatives, something that i think will cause every american to say they can get something done. for that, i'm grateful an urge the passage of this bill. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: madam chair, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hurt: i rise in support of the bipartisan jobs act an thank chairman bachus for his leadership in putting the committee at the forefront of creating job-creating policies in this house. after recently touring virginia's fifth district, i'm reminded that federal

government overregulation continues to stand in the way of the life blood of our economy. our small family businesses. our main street banks, and our family farms. across the fifth district, i regularly hear stories of how unnecessary regulations have served as a barrier to existing family business owners who wish to hire an expand their companies and as a barrier to aspiring fifth district entrepreneurs that are discouraged from investing in new startups. our committee has worked to offer solutions that would give sints across this country the ability to harness the american dream by starting a new business, working to make that business successful, and working to create the jobs americans desperately need. the jobs act represents a legislative package that has support from members of congress on both sides of the aisle and from the president. this legislation collectively reduces burdens, it prevents small businesses from accessesing the capital necessary to expand and it encourage ours entrepreneurs to get their startups off the

ground. this legislation represents an opportunity for congress and the president to work together to advance legislation for the good of the american people. small family businesses and family farms are the backbone of our economy in central and south side virginia and as we work to grow our economy and spur job creation, it is critical that we adopt legislation like the jobs act to make it easier for them to succeed, not harder. we must act now to put the american people back to work and sustain the american dream for our children and our grandchildren. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, i thank the gentleman for yielding, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. waters: i yield myself two minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much to the members of this house and to those who are listening to this debate. you've heard this described as a jobs bill. and in my earlier remarks i too

described this as a jobs bill. you've heard us talk about job creation, access to capital, ways by which we can support small businesses in general but i.p.o.'s in particular. you heard us talk about crowd funding and created means and ways by which we can help to invigorate this economy. and so certainly this is a jobs bill. but then you heard some reference to the president's job bill by our minority whip, mr. steny hoyer. who talked about a comprehensive approach. make no mistake, this jobs bill is important and i certainly hope that it will help to stimulate the economy in ways that all of us thought that it could. however, when you take a look at this compared to the president's comprehensive legislation, then

you understand what mr. steny hoyer was talking about. mr. steny hoyer was talking about the president's comprehensive jobs bill that would do some very important things. it talked about job sharing, it was going -- it will make sure that our teachers and our firefighters are kept on the job. it talks about school construction, it talks about aid to community colleges and comprehensive efforts to provide tax credits for small businesses. so, you see, we would like everybody to understand that we're not abandoning a comprehensive effort to do real job creation and access to capital and support for small businesses. we're trying to take every opportunity, every step. and as it has been mentioned time and time again -- respectfully request one more minute. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for one more minute.

ms. waters: in continuing the comparison between the two efforts, as it has been said over and over again today we certainly have joined in a bipartisan fashion to move this bill. even though i am not sure and some of our members are not sure that everything that's in all of these bills is what we absolutely understand and we're willing to say, we know that it will help, that it will help to deal with this economy in ways that we want it to. but we're willing to take a chance. we're willing to try. now, when you compare this with the president's comprehensive jobs bill, then you can see this is only one effort and in comparison it's a small effort. in comparison to what the president has proposed. and so let us not forget we still have work to do. we still have to be concerned

about the unacceptable high unemployment rate. as we speak today the unemployment rate is still in excess of 8%. the gentlelady requests another additional two minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for an additional two minutes. ms. waters: thank you very much. the unemployment -- the chair: at the end of that time the gentlewoman will have 30 seconds remaining. ms. waters: the gentlelady will include the 30 seconds in this two-minute request. the chair: the gentlewoman's recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. waters: so, madam chair, i would like for us all to recognize that we have taken a step, that we are constantly accused of not being able to do. and that is move something in a bipartisan fashion. and i'm appreciative for my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle who have been so cooperative and i'm appreciative for the leadership that has been provided on this side of the aisle. but we still must remember that

unemployment is unacceptably high. we must remember that we must have a comprehensive approach. we must remember that the president has presented us with the comprehensive, realistic approach by which we can stimulate this economy, create jobs, support education and our schools and help the unemployed in ways that they are desperately waiting for. so with that, madam chair, i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: madam speaker, at this time i am happy to yield two minutes to the vice chairman of the capital markets subcommittee, one of the prime authors of this bill, the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. schweikert: thank you, madam chairman, and to my good friend from texas, thank you also. i actually feel is somewhat blessed being able to stand here today -- feel somewhat blessed

being able to stand here today. i'm blessed because i have multiple pieces of legislation that are rolled into this jobs bill as well as multiple amendments. so let me make sure that i've said my proper thank yous. i also want to make sure that the chairman of the financial services committee, spencer bachus, has my appreciation for allowing me to work on these over the last year. but i also need to reach across the aisle to mr. himes and many of the others who made me defend some of the ideas, who argued with me and helped me make these better pieces of legislation through the last year as we vetted the process. and i wanted to touch on two of the pieces of legislation that are in here and help folks understand why these are actually really important to capital formation for small businesses. the first one we referred to as h.r. 1070. small capital formation act. many people will refer to it as regulation a. regular-a. in today's world, if you want -- reg-a. in today's world, if you wanted to go public in this process,

you could only go public with a capitalization of $5 million. well, no one's going to the stock market for $5 million. this will raise it to $50 million. why is $50 million so important? $50 million is the minimum threshold to be traded on the big exchanges, on the public exchanges. this allows an organization to find a path, a less expensive path, to become publicly traded and be publicly traded on those exchanges where it can be viewed and vetted and hopefully grow and grow jobs. the second bill i have in here that i'm very proud of is one that we realize that capital formation is changing in the world. and for many, many, many, many years if you were an organization, you got to 500 shareholders, you had to stop. because that's at 501 you had to go to the s.e.c. and do a public filing. what if you were a biotech company and you were giving shares, bits of ownership of the company, to your employees?

this will remove those employees -- mr. hensarling: i yield an additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. schweikert: this will give those employees an exemption so a company that's growing, that's in some ways, to use a term that's often used around here, spreading the wealth, inside that organization, and encourage folks to vest their time and their talent in what are speculative ventures as the company is growing, that lifts that cap but it also raises it to 1,000 shareholders. there may be an amendment that will raise it to 2,000 and that is something i will support. the last thing here is also in committee we heard discussion last year of why should community banks, why should we raise their shareholder limit to 2,000? we actually had some community banks come to us and say, look, we've been around for many, many, many years, we have legacy stockholderers in the company. we're at that 500 share. but because of our long history we can no longer raise the capital, the equity capital

that's necessary. and that's why that concept is so important, raising that to 2,000 shareholders. i yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. hensarling: i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: thank you, madam chair. again, jobs and growing the economy is what our constituents care about. again, we are unfortunately and regrettably in the midst of the slowest and weakest recovery in the post-war era. and in fact many of my constituents, though don't feel the recovery. they don't see it. they still know many of their friends and neighbors and family members remain unemployed. and that's why the number one priority of house republicans have been to grow this economy

and create more jobs. it's why house republicans have a plan for america's job creators. madam chair, it's very difficult, very difficult to find common ground in this institution, as we all know. and regrettably the vast majority of these bills are stacked up like cordwood in the united states senate. they won't take them up. we tried many of the president's ideas for two years. we tried every single one of his ideas. we tried the stimulus program which helped stimulate the national debt to the level it has today. we tried the president's health care plan that we were told would help grow jobs in the -- and the economy. dodd-frank, financial institutions, the big get bigger, the small get smaller, the taxpayer gets poor. we disagreed with those policies. so we have tried to find common

ground. we heard the distinguished minority whip lament that the bill didn't do more. this is the common ground we can find. with our friends on the other side of the aisle. it's important. it's not as important as repealing the president's health care program which is absolutely strangling our small businesses. it's not as important as turning back so much of the red tape that impacts every single small business in america by enacting the reins act, to ensure that congress, not the unelected bureaucracy, controls whether or not we impose job-killing regulations on our small business enterprises. but it's still an important bill nonetheless. it's a bill that will allow these emerging growth companies, again, perhaps the googles of tomorrow, the apples of tomorrow, to be able to access vital equity capital. and so it's important -- it's an important piece of legislation.

i wish it did more. i wish my friends from the other side of the aisle would acknowledge that we have tried many of their partisan ideas and they haven't worked. but here's at least a bipartisan idea. where we have worked with the president. we have his support right here, right here, madam chair. when the president of the united states supports this legislation . and so i'm happy that at least one portion, one portion of the house republican plan for america's job creators stand as very good chance -- stands a very good chance of being turned into law and that the american people will see that we continued to work to find that common ground. and so i'm happy again to be able to encourage my colleagues to support this today. i look forward to the day that the president can sign this into law. and at this time, madam chair, i would like to yield two minutes

to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mchenry. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. mchenry: thank you, madam chairwoman. i want to thank my colleague, mr. hensarling, for his leadership on the financial services committee and i want to thank my colleague, mr. finch, for offering the legislation before us today. -- mr. fincher, for offering the legislation before us today. the american people understand that entrepreneurship is at a record low. and it's actually at a 17-year low in the united states. we know that small businesses create the majority of new jobs in our country and has done so for generations. we also know that we have record unemployment. we have 8% unemployment for a record 36 months, at that very high level. it's unacceptable. we have to do something. now, we cannot fix everything in one piece of legislation. this idea that you can have just simply a large bill that fixes all the problems in the world simply is not in accordance with american history or what the

american people want and desire. but we also know and the american people understand, especially small business folks and entrepreneurs understand, that red tape gets in the way of job creation. we saw with the dodd-frank act that it restricts lending and makes it more costly to get lending. if you talk to small business folks, that's their one biggest complaint, is a restriction on access to capital. that's on the debt side. we also see that we have regulations and laws written in 1933 and 1934 in an era when the telephone was the new technology of the day. we need to update those regulations. that is at the heart of what this jobs act does. it doesn't simply say, about debt fundraising, it says on the equity side that you can go around the red tape and actually

allow the average everyday investor access to the capital markets and the new great ideas of the future. this is what the legislation is about. i urge my colleagues to vote for it and i ask sk my colleagues to move -- and i ask my colleagues to move forward on this, especially in the senate and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. . mr. hensarling: how much time is remaining? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. hensarling: i'm happy to yield that one minute to the prime author of the jobs act, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fincher: i want to thank the gentleman from texas for yielding. i stand today heart broken that something we meant for good here, myself and my colleague, mr. carney, a jobs act, would be tied up in some heated

rhetoric. i want to urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that jobs aren't democrat or republican. they're american. and people are begging for congress to get out of the way and let the private sector get back in the business of creating jobs. that's what we're doing with this jobs bill that we're pushing through. so hopefully, hopefully, we can get beyond some feelings, hurt feelings, maybe, and let's focus back on the reason why we were sent up here an that's to put the people back in the power and not washington. with that, i yield back, mr. chairman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment urn the five-minute rule. in lue of the amendment -- in

lieu of the amendment in the nature of the substitute, an moment in the nature of a substitute is adopted in the bill as amended, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no further amendment to the bill as amended shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-409. each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally guyed and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number one, pinned in house report 112-409. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one printed in house report

112-409, offered by mr. fincher of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 572, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher, and a member opposed, each shall control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. fincher: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today along with the gentleman from delaware, mr. carney, to offer a technical amendment to h.r. 3606. the amendment now pending would simply provide technical crecks to the underlying bill. both members and committee staff have heard from various groups an stake holders affected by this bill. the amendment is a reflection of the deckny -- of the technical advice given by these groups. i strongly believe these technical changes to improve the bill and ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee reserves. do any members seek type in opposition. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the

amendment, though aisle not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: i want to commend, again, the gentleman from tennessee, the gentleman from delaware, for this amendment. that i believe helps improve the underlying amendment with some technical corrections. ill urge all members to adopt it. -- i would urge all members to adopt it and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. fincher: i would like to yield to the gentleman mr. carney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. carney: i don't oppose this amendment, i rise in support of the technical amendment that's under consideration at this time and also say that we've

had in the work through the committee, we also had a technical amendment that was adopted by the committee that address a number of the concerns that were raised by ranking member frank and by my good friend from ohio, mr. rene see, for this amendment under consideration right now. -- mr. renacci, for this amendment right now. i rise in support of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time the chair: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from tennessee. mr. fincher: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time having been yielded back, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-409. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise today in support of my amendment to jump start our business startups act and would like to speak on the same. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 pinted in house report 112-409, offered by mr. mcintyre of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 57 , the gentleman from north carolina, mr. mcintyre, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. mcintyre: this important amendment adjusted the emerging growth company definition for inflation, providing for flexability for businesses. the emerging growth company definition would ensure that our small businesses and startups thrive in our nation's challenging economy and continue to create jobs that

are so important to our citizens. similar to other parts of the bill, the amount remitted to regulation flexibility will be adjusted for inflation to take into account increased costs companies are facing. this will allow more businesses to be able to enjoy the regulation flexibility and help them start up an grow. mr. speaker, our economy continues to struggle and many americans are struggling with dwindling family finances while too many are facing joblessness. no one knows better than our true job creators across the nation need to be able to have relief from burdensome regulations. the small businesses an companies being hit hard by regulations need relief. it is imperative that we all work together to reduce regulations and get rid of onerous regulations on our business and help them continue to ecrew ate jobs an persevere my amendment which the congressional budget office has scored as having no cost to the federal government reflects the

needs and priorities of those small businesses an entrepreneurs across the nation. by passing it today, we all together can make a difference for american families an businesses. let's work together to rebuild our economy and put americans back to work. with that, i yield one minute to mr. sarbanes of maryland. the chair: the gentleman veck niced. mr. sarbanes: i thank the gentleman for yielding. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise with some significant concerns about the i.p.o. onramp provisions of this bill. i'm concerned because there already is exempted from the sarbanes-oxley compliance requirements about 60% of the i.p.o.'s that we see and this would extend the period in which companies have the requirement of complying with sarbanes-oxley to five years for companies that exceed that 75 million and go up to $1 billion in revenues.

my concern about that is that's a period of time in which a lot of mischief can be done when it comes to financial fraud and i think it exposes investors to significant potential damage and my hope would have been that this could have been remedied along the way because of my concerns about it i'm going to be compelled to vote against the bill because i think it really has the effect of gutting significant investor protections. i thank you for the time and i yield back. the chair: does any member claim time in opposition? the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition though i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: i would like to encan urge the house to support the amendment from the gentleman from north carolina, i believe it to be very straightforward, very simple, very commonsense to imply -- to

ensure that there is an inflation adjustment that is applied to the underlying bill. i think that is helpful. i urge, again, all members to adopt. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mcintyre: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i yield back. the chair: all time having been yieldle back -- yielded back, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-409. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment 3 pinted tissue prinned in house report 112-409, offered by mr. himes

of connecticut. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 572, the gentleman from crths, mr. himes and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut. mr. himes: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, my amendment is very simple. this bill that we are discussing today creates what we have come to describe as the i.p.o. onramp which for emerging growth companies would lift some of the more burdensome requirements that are perhaps more appropriate for larger, more established companies. now the question naturally arises, how should we define an emerging growth company? currently, the bill specifies that a company with revenues at or in excess of $1 billion would not qualify, meaning revenues less than that and you could qualify to be an emerging growth company. my amendment, mr. chairman, and my belief is, that this is far

too expansive a definition of emerging growth companies. it's not just my belief, we heard in the hearing on which we held on this bill from mr. leblanc that something more like $250 million to $500 million in ref thues would be appropriate. i offered in committee the notion similar to this amendment that we make the cap $750 million in revenues. the council of institutional investors has sent a letter to our leadership, expressing the same concern about the $1 billion revenue number and i would just read from that letter and quote, we note that some of the most knowledgeable and active advocates for small business capital formation, let me repeat that, some of the most knowledgeable and active advocates for small business capital formation have in the past afreed that a company with more than $250 million of public float generally as the resources and infrastructure to

comply with existing u.s. security regulations. it's hard to know $1 billion in revenue is an abstraction. let me give you an example. i have a hi of i.p.o.'s that have occurred in the last couple of years. currently, what i think of as a fine company, spirit airlines, with some $800 million in revenues would qualify as an emerging growth company. they went public in may of 2011. spirit airlines is an established airline with 2,400 employees. they are a company with the capability to comply with the full array of protections that are there for investors and others. i would note that the let i read from is from the association that is there to advocate on behalf of investors. my amendment is commonsense, it's supported by the hearing we had, it's supported by the down soifl institutional investors, it is commonsense, dare i use that phrase, and

therefore would urge adoption. so that we get this definition right. it is a great bill. it is good that we are making it easier for small and emerging companies to go public and to not bear the full burden of the protections that are out there but we should get this definition right. we should make sure this is a benefit that accrues -- accrues to truly small, entrepreneurial emerging companies, therefore i think that $750 million in revenue is a more appropriate benchmark and therefore i propose this amendment. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does someone claim time in opposition? the gentleman from texas texas. mr. hensarling: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the jell is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, again, the people of america care about jobs, they care about economic growth. although we've had some recent

improvement in our monthly unemployment figure, when we add in those who are working part time who would prefer to be working full time and add in those who have frankly just given up and left the labor force, we know that the true unemployment rate in america is closer to 15.3%. and we know that the job engine of america is small business. every big business had to start as a small business. i respect the gentleman's contribution to the bill. it is about line drawing. i understand that. i respect his opinion. i know from the professional background from which he has come, but i feel like his amendment would take this bill in the complete opposite direction of where we need to take this policy for emerging growth companies. he used the example of spirit airlines, i don't have the figure at my fingertips, but i believe their market cap was in

excess of what is provided for in the underlying bill so i believe, again, they would not have qualify for the exemption in the first place. but we will provide this onramp for emerging growth companies so we can find tomorrow's googles, we can find tomorrow's apples. and yes this is drawing some lines in the sand but it's clearly not a line that seems to be of great concern to the president. we all know that the white house issues statement of administration policy and when they have concerns about provisions in a piece of legislation, they have never been shy to share that with us. and as i read the statement of administration policy, the president doesn't seem to have a problem where that line has been drawn. i would also point out that the companion legislation on the

senate side, s. 1933, introduced by senator schumer of new york, democrat senator schumer of new york, also has a gross revenue test of $1 billion. and so it appears that the president supports this, senator schumer supports this, it is a bipartisan -- it has bipartisan support for this $1 billion figure. and i think at this particular time in our nation's history the american people demand we err on the side of creating jobs and economic growth and so again i respect the gentleman for his amendment but i would urge that it be rejected and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. himes: mr. chairman, i recognize the gentleman from massachusetts for one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. chair. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i believe the gentleman from connecticut has made the points but i do want to point out that

this radical amendment, under current law and current regulation, approximately 60% of all businesses are already exempt. they're exempted pursuant to a law that we passed in 2003, sarbanes-oxley, which was a bipartisan bill. mr. capuano: sarbanes-oxley. bipartisan. all this radical amendment does is simply say that we're all going up from 60% to allow 80% of the businesses to be exempted from these provisions. now, i don't think that's radical by any definition. i think that's reasonable and the truth is i have some he's tansy even at these numbers but i do believe this is worth trying because it's worth taking a shot to see if some relief will help. at the same time it is not a wise provision to take a complete step backwards, to say to ininvestors that you're going to go in blind, you're going to be exempted from audits.

this bill doesn't do. that i don't think that's the attempt. -- i don't -- do that. i don't think that's the attempt. i think this bill has an underlying good purpose and i'd like to be able to support it. but i think that the bill goes too far, particularly, particularly in this provision. by going from 60% to 80% in one fell swoop, i think the risks are too high, having gone through the problems of the early 2000's, the problem of 2008 and the potential problems that are lurking there every single day. a little extra transparency on behalf of the investors is not a bad thing when we're only talking a handful of the largest corporations in the country. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: i continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas has can -- the gentleman from texas has two minutes remaining. the gentleman from connecticut's time has expired.

mr. hensarling: the time of the gentleman has expired from connecticut. in that case, mr. chairman, i will yield the remainder of the time to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two miverage. mr. fincher: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to be clear. this bill is about new companies, not existing companies, but about new companies that are wanting to go public. the $1 billion revenue and $700 million in public thresholds for emerging growth companies in the underlying bill were recommended by the nonpartisan i.p.o. task force, compromise of industry experts such as venture capitalists, public investors, entrepreneurs, investment bankers, accountants, professors, securities attorneys and exchanges. if we strike the public flow requirements we break this provision's ties to an already defined s.e.c. threshold. $700 million in public float is the threshold for a company to be considered a large accelerated filer under s.e.c. rules.

this number is used by the s.e.c. to define a mature company meaning that the company will be able to handle complying with a variety of s.e.c. regulations on day one of its i.p.o. the $1 billion revenue threshold in the bill serves as a backstop to the s.e.c.'s definition of an accelerated filer. in addition, lowering revenue thresholds would increase i.p.o. costs for more companies and make the i.p.o. path less attractive than merger and acquisition transactions. more mergers and less i.p.o.'s would mean less job creation here at home as a result of innovative companies being absorbed by larger purchasers including non-u.s. companies. therefore i appreciate the gentleman's -- and ppeds his wanding to go in this direction, but we just cannot support this amendment and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the gentleman from texas actually has 15 seconds remaining. i'm assuming you yield back as well. mr. hensarling: yield back the balance of my time. the chair: all time having been yielded, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. himes: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in the house report 11-409. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-409 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 572, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the

gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: thank you to the chairman. let me acknowledge first of all the combined efforts that has generated this approach to putting americans back to work. let me acknowledge the manager that is on the floor, congresswoman waters, for her enormous leadership on many of these issues, as well as the ranking member of the full committee, mr. frank, who certainly has served and exercised his willingness to deal with questions of these markets. and of course my friend from texas who is managing this and is again, i hope, working with us in a bipartisan way on some very serious matters. again, let me emphasize that the most effective way to reduce our deficit is to put americans back to work. my amendment in this legislation deals with acknowledging that

the merging companies under this -- emerging companies under this legislation provides for five years from the date of the e.g.c.'s initial public offering to also date has $1 billion in annual growth and the date of e.g.c. becomes a large filer which is defined by the securities and exchange. a number of provisions to help small businesses. this is an important principle. but my amendment as a -- add as requirement that a company would not be considering an emerging growth company, an e.g.c., if it has issued more than $1 billion in nonconvertible debt over the prior three years. let me suggest that we are doing better than many of us might think. many aspects of this bill, for example, will help community banks, which will help other small businesses. but if we look to the economy as we speak, the private sector unemployment has grown for 23 straight months, the economy has grown for 10 straight quarters, overall business investment is

going up, corporate profits are up as are investments in equipment and software and exports have been a source of growth. but emerging growth or small businesses need the extra push because when you think of the backbone of america, you think of small businesses. as a matter of fact, it is not uncommon for a company to be financed with debt as opposed to equity and while $1 billion is not what it used to be, it is still a pretty substantial sum of money. so what i'm saying is i want to help small businesses, but i also want to ensure that we do not expand this legislation where it is not actually helping those smaller emerging growth companies that truly are in need. for years both wall street and big banks lacked the requisite government and oversight accountability and i believe that it is important to ensure continued oversight but continued help for these particular companies. with that i'd like to reserve the balance of my time and ask my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentlelady

reserves. the gentleman from texas. seek time in opposition? mr. hensarling: yes, mr. chairman. i seek -- i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: i'm not frankly certain i'm in opposition to jeavement the gentlelady's amendment and i appreciate -- to the gentlelady's amendment and i appreciate her bringing it to the floor. if she would yield for a question, i'm just trying to understand the purpose of her amendment and what is the deficiency in the underlying bill that she seeks to address with this amendment would be that question. i would be happy to yield to the gentlelady. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman. you're yielding -- mr. hensarling: yes. i'm just inquiring as to the perceived deficiency in the underlying bill that you seek to address with your amendment and i would be happy to yield to my friend from texas. ms. jackson lee: i like the concept of emerging growth and i think the concept is to build

these businesses up, to give them greater opportunities and what i'm suggesting is that the amendment suggests that if you have issued more than $1 billion, you have grown sufficiently to have an additional standard or a different standard. this particular amendment suggests that we have a framework for emerging growth. mr. hensarling: one other question for the gentlelady, on the three-year period, i'm just curious as to the thought or purpose behind that particular selection of a three-year period. i would once again be happy to yield to my friend, the gentlelady from texas. ms. jackson lee: i tell my good friend, it is not five years, i thought that was an appropriate framework for a $1 billion, if you spread it out over a period of time. that's three -- so much a year. let me just say that i think the

concept is so important, to my friend from it ks, that -- my friend from texas, that a friendly modification would be welcomed in the time frame but i think the $1 billion is an appropriate standard, if you will, for trying to ensure that we really do boost and give latitude to emerging growth companies. mr. hensarling: i thank the gentlelady for her responses and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from texas. ms. jackson lee: let me just conclude my remarks and if i might, let me yield to the gentleman because i did not hear him clearly. let me yield to the gentleman from texas for a question i'd like to ask. i did not hear your support or opposition to this initiative. mr. hensarling: is the gentlelady yielding? ms. jackson lee: yeah. hoping for a good bipartisan effort here. but i am yielding to the

gentleman. mr. hensarling: yes, the gentlelady was very perceptive in her hearing. i was contemplating the theans the gentlelady gave. at this time i do not intend to oppose the amendment. ms. jackson lee: the gentleman is very kind. so let me just say as my leader on the floor was trying to get an inquiry about it, let me, you always take a gift quickly and you say thank you. i think that this will add to the confidence of this legislation and as i indicated, though, this is not specifically to -- specifically to this point, i want to make sure we're helping community banks provide more lending and access to small businesses and i want to make sure that we, understand the definition of this bill, help emerging growth companies as well be stronger and as well to