turning two factor authentication here before you enter your e-mail, gmail since you a code. a hacker wants to get into your e-mail and your mobile phone. host: we have been talking with michael riley about cyber security and hacking. please come back. guest: thank you. host: the house of representatives is going to come in session. we want to remind you that the communicators will be featuring senator lieberman and senator collins on saturday. this is an interview about cyber security and their legislation they are pushing on the communicators. the house of representatives is about to come into session.

you can see they have not quite open the door. if you have c-span3, you can watch eric holder today talking about the justice department budget request. that is just beginning live on c-span3. if you do not have c-span3, tell them you want it. the house is in session. thank you for being with us today on "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father conroy. chaplain conroy: let us pray.

almighty god of the universe, we give you thanks for giving us another day. we pray for the gift of wisdom to all with great responsibility in this house, for the leadership of our nation. may all the members have the vision of a world where respect and understanding are the marks of civility and where honor and integrity are the marks of one's character. as members take time in the coming week for constituency visits, give them the ability to hear the voices of all in their districts so that when they return they are focused on the important work to be done. bless us this day and every day and may all that is done within these hallowed halls be for your greater honor and glory. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved.

the pledge of allegiance today will be led by the gentleman from illinois, mr. gutierrez. mr. gutierrez: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to five one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the distinguished majority leader rise? mr. cantor: i rise to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker: without objection, so ordered. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the jump-start our business startups act. our nation's success has been built by individuals who turned innovative ideas into small businesses, by taking risks and working hard, our small business owners drive the majority of job creation in this country. right now it's just too

difficult to start up a business. the threat of higher taxes and increased regulations has small business men and women and entrepreneurs frozen in their tracks. small businesses and startups simply do not have the bandwidth to comply with washington's red tape, and yet they're the ones we are counting on to create jobs. mr. speaker, the jobs act will get small businesses and entrepreneurs back in the game by removing costly regulations and making it easier for them to access capital. this legislation also paves the way for more startups and small businesses to go public which will attract new investors and will allow the small businesses to grow and create jobs. in his state of the union address, president obama asked congress to send him a bill that helps startups and entrepreneurs succeed. the jobs act that we'll be voting on today does exactly that.

our bill brings together commonsense measures that have bipartisan support here in washington and from business leaders across the country, including former chairman and founder steve case. mr. speaker, i'd like to recognize my colleagues who worked on the jobs absent, including congressman stephen fincher, whip kevin mccarthy, congressman schweikert, congressman ben quayle, congressman john carney and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. let's build on this bipartisan momentum, mr. speaker. this week president obama offered his support for the jobs act. i strongly urge senator reid to take up this bill as quickly as possible and let's just get it to the president's desk. mr. speaker, the american people want to see us get something done and produce results. with the jobs act, we do have a window of opportunity for both

parties in washington to come together and produce results. we must make sure america remains the place where extraordinary success can be achieved by individuals who are willing to take risks and work hard. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. gutierrez: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gutierrez: madam speaker, puerto rico lost one of the towering labor figures, pedro grant. throughout his life, mr. grant was an example for the struggle of justice. he was one of the main leaders of the united workers movement which led to the revival of the labor movement in puerto rico in the 1960's and 1970's. by his example, mr. grant taught us that a life well lived is a life devoted for the struggle of justice and human rights and dignity for working people. he was a life-long fighter

against abuses of power and standing up for the little guy. he was a puerto rican patriot whose wisdom and strength will be sorely missed. i will say a few words in his lack for his memory. [speaking spanish] with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: madam speaker, modern day slavery is alive in america. when maria was 16 she was lured from mexico to houston by a man who promised her a better life, but when she arrived in texas, she learned this scoundrel was in the slavery business. the slave master put maria up for sale. now she was a sex slave, a

child of human trafficking. here's what she said, every day , six to seven days a week, i'd have sex with seven to 10 men a night during the week and during the weekends 20 to 30 men a night. tortured and abuse, the slave trader threatened her. she defied her capture and called for help. law enforcement came to the aid and rescued her. the trafficker was convicted and sent to prison where we house these deviant slave traders. now it's time to prosecute the customers as well. meanwhile, we have a duty to help and care for the victims of child sex slavery like maria, and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady seek unanimous consent? >> yes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. sanchez: thank you, madam

speaker. i rise today in recognition of international woman's day. today is the day that honors numerous women who have actively and passionately participated in various economic, social and political issues within their communities. women around the world it be to face significant obstacles in all aspects of their lives, including discrimination, gender bias and the denial of basic human rights. let's take a look at vietnam for example. one who was sentenced without trial to two years of re-education camp without a trial for participating in peaceful protests related to the eastern sea. or ms. hong, a labor organizer who was sentenced to seven years imprisonment for advocating for farmers and workers' rights. or ms. tin, who was unfairly sentenced to four years

imprisonment followed by three years house arrest for participating in a nonviolent hunger strike in her home against the issue of the eastern sea. in the discourse of women's rights, these women are only three of the many voices who have been unjustly sentenced to prison without ndou process. madam speaker, i ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in recognizing international woman's day and the women who are advocating for freedom and democracy in their communities and in countries such as vietnam. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> i come to the floor today saddened by the news of the passing of world war ii veteran and las vegas resident, mr. obus. he was born of a small community known as the denied filipino veterans. born in the philippines on august 28, 1924, mr. obus

entered into military service in march of 1945 and trained as a military policeman. he served in the 12th military police company and was honorably discharged in 1946. while he enjoyed a happy, healthy life following the war, one thing mr. opis did not share with his world war ii veterans was full recognition for his military benefits he had rightfully learned. in february of 1946, president harry truman signed the rescission act into law. this bill denied over 200,000 filipino world war ii veterans who served before july, 1946, the benefits promised to them five years prior by president franklin roosevelt. the men who joined prior to 1946 put their lives on the line for the allied cause and helped us win the war in the pacific, yet due to the technicality are not due the recognition they deserve. it's estimated that 10 of these forgotten soldiers die having no recognition of service from

our government. men like augustus opis. my home is home to four filipino veterans. i am personally thankful for their service and continue working to see them probably recognized, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from american samoa rise? mr. faleomavaega: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. faleomavaega: revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. faleomavaega: madam speaker, increasing american manufacturing is central to president obama's vision for an economy built to last. the american manufacturing industry has expanded for 30 straight months. for the first time since the 1990's we're creating manufacturing jobs again. the past two years american manufacturers have created nearly 400,000 jobs across the country. because of president obama's decisive actions we've also experienced a revival in the

automotive industry. the last 2 1/2 years the auto industry alone has added more than 200,000 jobs. furthermore, general motors company once again is the number one company of the world, and it recently announced its largest annual profits in history. thanks again to president obama's determination to assist this important industry to get back on its feet. because of president obama's leadership, the united states also is on track to meet this goal of doubling exports within five years. now more than ever, consumers around the world are buying products stamped with the three magic words, "made in america." the vitality of the american manufacturing industry is crucial to the economic recovery of our nation. i commend president obama for his commitment to our manufacturing industries and most of all for his bold leadership and vision. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, it's worse

than we thought. president obama and his activist interior department are threatening an estimated 100,000 direct and indirect coal jobs according to a new study. mr. johnson: this is from the administration's proposed rewrite of the string buffer zone rule that would cut coal production in half. instead of developing one of america's most abundant resources, the obama administration chooses to attack the coal industry and the jobs that go with it and would rather put the american taxpayer on the hook for failed companies like solyndra. this is unacceptable. we need solutions and real growth to create jobs through energy development because the president's current policies continue to hurt america and are making our economy worse. house republicans have a plan to stop president obama's attack on coal. it's hard of the plan for america's job creators that's being blocked by president obama and senate democrats. this failure of leadership is irresponsible and it needs to

stop. and with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. inslee: madam speaker, i rise today to honor the united states navy who under the leadership of secretary lee mavis are doing a fantastic job developing clean, green sources of energy for the united states navy and eventually the world. the navy is already flying the blue angels on biofuels. it is charging our communication equipment in afghanistan with solar energy. it is on a path to half of its energy coming from clean sources by 2020 and the great green fleet by 2016. in my state we're building whole industries around this. targeted growth, general biofuels, boeing, alaska airlines. we can power the future with clean energy that the navy is leading the way. the university of washington is doing great work.

i know there is one great former washington state student who's helping on this effort and her name's trudy. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? mrs. capps: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i rise today in recognition of the life and contributions of our colleague and friend, donald payne. donald will always be remembered for his commitment to his community which he served with distinction as a local elected official. to his country, evidenced by 23 years of service in congress in which he championed education and fair labor practices. and to the global community where he was a champion for global health, especially malaria prevention and treatment. don was a joy to travel with. he ginaldgenltleness with strength. stood with -- he combined gentleness with strength.

and always spoke of his commitment but as he did he had this warm hearted smile, even as i smiled, as he gave voice to the voiceless. our thoughts and prayers are with don payne's family, with his staff and the people of the 10th district of new jersey and for all of us as key keep his -- as we keep his legacy alive. don, you will be missed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. hensarling: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.r. 3606 and insert extraneous material thereon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

pursuant to house resolution 572 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 3606. will the gentlelady from michigan, mrs. miller, kindly take the care. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for 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 on wednesday, march 7, 2012, amendment number 10 printed in house report 112 -409 offered offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy, had been disposed of. it is now in order to considered

amendment number 11. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. mchenry: i have an amendment printed in the rule. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11, printed in house report number 112-409, offered by mr. mchenry of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 572, the gentleman from mcmc, mr. mchenry, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. mchenry: thank you, madam chair. and i i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mchenry: this amendment is very simple. we know that policymakers in washington here know that entrepreneurship is at a 17-year low in the united states. we also know that small businesses are the drivers of our economy. so what this amendment does is enable investors to connect with start-ups.

it takes away some red tape that is within securities regulations, and allows incubators, forum, and online platforms which only connect to credited investors to start-ups to be exempt from s.e.c. registration as a broker-dealer if they, number one, do not charge a commission or a fee for their service. number two, do not handle the moneys of investors. and number three, only permit accredited investors to use their platforms. this is a very narrow amendment, very specifically crafted. and in fact the president's council on jobs and competitiveness in october of last year said in their report, the emergence of angel investors and networks have also played a crucial role in initial funding of companies and the council recommends claring filing that experience and active seed in angel investors and their meeting venues should be -- should not be subject to the

regulation that is were designed to protect an experienced investor. this amendment deals with that subject matter within the president's jobs council recommendations. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i retain the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? mr. frank: to claim the time that would go to someone in opposition if there was anybody in opposition, which there does not appear to be. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frank: thank you. i support this amendment. i am pleased that we have been able to come together to process that is providing some improvement. as i said i think there have been people in both the executive and legislative branch that have edgeage rated the impact but they were helpful. do i want to make one point, it is true -- i do want to make one point, it is true the president who has been one of those that's been a proponent of this.

it's been a very bipartisan and cooperative process. there was a statement of administration policy in support of the bills. i do want to make it clear because there will be some subsequent amendments that i think will be controversial. this one is not. the next two -- actually not, i believe. but then two, three, four that may be. i want to make it very clear that the president's statement of administration policy, which supports the bill with the package of bills within it, in general, is in no way, and i speak for the administration on this having talked to them, an expression of opposition to the later amendments. the later amendments, and members will debate them one way or the other though i deeply regret the rules committee only gave us five minutes to debate controversial amendments on each side. i think that's a generation of process. we are probably going to finish up before noon today. and the notion that we couldn't have -- maybe 12:30. the notion we couldn't have taken 20 minutes or half-hour to debate a couple of these

significant issues seems to me very regrettable. i did want to make it clear that there are amendments that will be coming up that are not either supported or opposed by the administration. that is they are not in opposition to the general approach. since we only have five minutes, i will take a little of this time to note that for example there's one from mr. capuano, who is a very thoughtful student here, to make sure when we talk about holders of record that's not a subterfuge. that we are talking about limiting the number. that you don't get a whole lot of people listed as one holder of record. i think that amendment by mr. capuano is wholly in the spirit of this bill. mr. peters bill, one of the things that we were talking about, the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, is to talk about job impact. these have been listed as a jobs bill. we have one of those foolish acronyms which i'm not fond, they call this the jobs whatever. mr. peters wants to know how

many jobs are going to be created. i think that's very helpful. similarly the gentleman from california -- the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, wants to know what the real impact is. i will reserve the balance of my time at this point, but i did want to make clear that several of the subsequent amendments are not in any way derogatory to this bill. in fact, this bill does what it says, let's know about it. i reserve the balance of my time. i believe i have the right to close. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas has the right to close. because the gentleman is not a true opponent. from north carolina. mr. mchenry: i'm prepared to close. mr. frank: i'll take my time to say this. this is a bill which does some neutral things to reduce what the s.e.c. will have to do in some of these areas, not

primarily to save time from the s.e.c., but in fact to try to make it less burdensome for the companies that are involved. but that having been said the reduction in s.e.c. duties, which are really incidental to this bill, in no way removes the need for adequate funding for the s.e.c. and one of the things that has been troubling to many of us is a tendency on the part of the majority to refuse the adequate funding to the s.e.c. that it needs to carry out its new responsibilities. that's especially troubling because the s.e.c. funds come from the taxpayers. the s.e.c. is funded by a fee paid by those who participate in the securities business. in fact as we are doing here we are exempting the smaller people. so when we have the largest financial institutions in this country paying a relatively small fee, in fact an absolutely small fee, we can fund the s.e.c. adequately.

and what we have seen is a disturbing refusal on the part of the majority of this house to give the s.e.c. the funds it needs. we gave the s.e.c. increased powers over investor protection with fiduciary responsibilities over shareholder rights. we gave them increased powers particularly over derivatives which had gone unregulated for so long. we have had some criticisms from the s.e.c. for not moving for promptly. we have had some criticisms of the s.e.c. for not doing a better job of enforcement. none of those were helped by starving them of funds. so where we have a situation where the majority does the financial community the favor of withholding funds that the administration has asked for the s.e.c., and we have asked that they be funded at that higher level, and by doing so not only damages the enforcement capabilities of the s.e.c., but gives an unjustified present to the largest financial institutions, investment houses, and others that i think are -- a

very grave error has been made. i love the fact that we are making minor reductions in the s.e.c. burden here to try to help the companies, but that does not justify failing to adequately fund the s.e.c. out of fees assessed on the companies. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina, mr. the proponent, is recognized to close. mr. mchenry: thank you, madam chair. i appreciate the more consill torrey tone in today's debate. it's -- conciliatory tone in today's debate. and it's great to have the ranking member back in debating form today and permitted to debate on the house floor. this amendment is about investors, incubators, and start-ups. we have wide endorsements from 155 folks from across america, both investor level. we have incubators, we have online platforms and forums that have endorsed this, including the founder of a.o.l. , steve

case. the founder ever netscape, mark, who is also a renowned investor in silicon valley. this is a great amendment that clarifies something that's very important for us to update in securities laws. i certainly appreciate the support across the aisle for this important issue as well. i'm glad it can be happened with bipartisan support. and with that i ask my colleagues to vote yes. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. 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. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in orderle to consider amendment number 12 printed in house report 112-409. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in house report number 112-409, offered by mr. miller

of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 572, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. miller, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. miller: thank you, madam chair. i hate to be the only one at the campfire not singing couple bya -- kumbayah, but i do part company with the president and ranking democrat on the financial services committee in their support for this bill. i do fear that if we cut back on the transparency and we cut back on the investor protections, it really is only going to take one or two well publicized cases of investors losing their shirts, losing their retirement savings, because they got defaulted for small business capital to dry up. to get harder to come by instead of easier to come by. but i do agree that government should not go to great lengths to protect people who really can fend for themselves, who are

sophisticated. and who really knowingly decide that they do not want protections. this amendment increases the exception from s.e.c. registration to 2,000 investors, provided that no more than 500 are not accredit the investors -- accredited investors. the importance of the accredited investors or sophistication may well be overstated, but they are people who have well more than the net worth of most americans. they have a net worth of $1 million without consideration of equity in their home, which used to be more than it is now. . or $200,000 for an individual and $300,000 for a couple. they have to fill out a form to be an accredited investor. they have to opt in. they have to decide they want to be outside of some of the protections of the s.e.c.

so this will limit some of the effect of the bill to investors who are somewhat more able to fend for themselves or somewhat more sophisticated and are more able to take a loss in investing in a small business that may be a greater risk of an investment, an investment which may be more of a risk but may also promise more reward. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona reich? mr. schweikert: madam chairman, i rise claim to rise in opposition though i do not oppose the underlying amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from arizona is recognized for five minutes. mr. schweikert: madam chair, this is one of the case where mr. miller and i extend appreciation. we've gone back and forth in discussion over the last year of what should the number be. we all came to collective agreement that 500 was far too small for capital formation.

was 2,000 appropriate? well, should it be 2,000 accredited? what should be the unaccredited portion of that? and i think this is an appropriate compromise, and i thank mr. miller for bringing this to us and helping us get there. what this ultimately does is allows an organization to have investors up to 2,000, 500 of those can be unaccredited. the other 1,500 have to fill out the form, have to have net assets over $1 million exclusive of their home. couple hundred thousand a year income, $300,000 if they're a married couple. so we're dealing at that point, we made the decision this somewhat more sophisticated population gets to participate but they have to opt in and yet we still do not lock out those who are heading, shall we say, working that are way to being that next sophisticated population.

so madam chair womanwoman, i yield back my time but we -- so madam chairwoman, i yield back my time but we support this amendment. the chair: all time having expired, the question is on the amendment offered by mr. miller of 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 13 printed in house report 112-409. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. schweikert: madam chair woman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in house report 112-409 offered by mr. schweikert of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 572, the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. schweikert: madam chair woman, this amendment, well, we

will call it a study amendment. we have had repeated discussions on the difference between shareholders of record and beneficial interests. so this of think, we have just raised the number of shareholders that an organization can have. ok, what if you are a broker-dealer? do you count as one or do you count as many and does it make any difference in investor protection? so in this amendment we basically say, all right, s.e.c., we already believe you have this authority. please for the first 120 days, look into this, see if it causes any harm. if it doesn't, make that decision. we felt this would be a rational way to approach the question because it was a repeated discussion within committee, and just simply say, all right, if it's a problem, s.e.c., you have the authority. if not, let's move forward. but it's a good example of us not legislating something that at this point may be just folk

lohr. madam chair -- at this point may be just folklore. madam chair, i yield back -- excuse me. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise? mr. welch: i seek time in opposition although i am not opposed. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. welch: first off, it's very refreshing that we have legislation that focuses on improving the business climate that we are doing together, and we had some internal squabbles about whose name goes first. i don't think it amuses the american people. but the bottom line, it should encourage the american people, we have bipartisan legislationes that going to do positive things -- legislation that is going to do positive things for those in vermont and around the country. i want to thank mr. fincher, mr. himes, mr. carney, mr. schweikert for working so well

together to bring this legislation to the floor. there are a number of good things here. we don't have to exaggerate this as the answer to the real challenge in creating jobs, but you know what, just selling this for what it is is a good thing, and it's a good thing because it does practical things to help us improve our business climate, particularly for small businesses, and for the rare time we have this opportunity we are doing it together. but the legislation overall does a number of good things. the i.p.o. onramp that is going to allow companies that need access to capital, fewer barriers to get access to capital, particularly our small companies where the cost of putting together an initial -- initial public offering is very significant, oftentimes prohibitive. that's a very good thing. the access of capital for job creators act, it removes the regulatory ban that prevents small privately held companies from using advertisements to

solicit investors for private offerings. so they are allowed to let the word go out that they are open for business and they want investors. that's a good thing. the entrepreneur access to capital act permits crowdfunding to finance new businesses by allowing companies to accept pool donations up to $1 million. good step to take. the small companies capital formation act, mr. schweikert, my colleague from arizona, pioneered, raises the offering threshold from companies exempted from region station with the u.s. securities and exchange commission from $5 million, the threshold, to $50 million. and mr. schweikert, again, you've been busy. the private company flexibility and growth act raises the threshold for mandatory s.e.c. registration for companies from 500 to 2,000 shareholders. we have a company in new port, vermont, that has been under a lot of regulatory pressure. they can't go from that -- over that 500 threshold.

that's going to be very helpful, madam speaker, to that company get -- for that company get access to capital and it will make sure that the s.e.c. regulations are comploid with. and the legislation for community banks from 500 to 1,000 shareholders, that's going to have a direct impact on a bank in new port, vermont. so these are all practical steps. i don't think we need to oversell it. it's not the step that's going to get us down to the unemployment rate of 1% or 2% or 3% that all of us aspire to and there's a tendency in this body sometimes to oversell what we're doing. but you know what, we should minimize what we're doing as well. and these, again, practical, sensible, small business-oriented steps that are taken on a bipartisan basis. this is a good thing that we're doing, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona.

mr. schweikert: madam chair woman, i am prepared to close. may i request the time available in the chair: the gentleman has four minutes remaining. mr. schweikert: hopefully i won't take four minutes here. madam chairman, this amendment is actually very, very simple. we're basically reaching out to the s.e.c. saying, look, come back, make your determination and let us know within 120 days, you know, if you see this is an actual issue. the language in here not later than 120 days after enactment of this act transmits its recommendations to congress. this is actually i believe a good, workable, rational answer to much of the discussion that happened in the financial services committee. it also has the s.e.c. stand up and say, yes, they have the authority or, no, they don't, and then transmit that back to us in the committee. with that, madam chairman, i close. the chair: the gentleman yields back and the question is on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. 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 14 printed in house report 112-409. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? mr. capuano: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in house report 112-409 offered by mr. capuano of massachusetts. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 572, the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. capuano, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. capuano: thank you, madam chair. this amendment is actually a piggyback on the one we adopted by voice vote. it is a little more specific. had i known the gentleman offered his amendment i might have worked with him to make it a little more specific. in some elements it's redundant but this is more specific as to what the specific issue is. it's the definition of the

beneficial owner. right now when facebook went public, they allowed one or two or three handful investors to be counted as one. broker-dealers can hold investments on behalf of thousands, an unlimited amount of people. and the concept of having 2,000, 1,000, i respect the gentleman's comments previously there is no magic number. 2,000 sounds fine. 1,000 sounds fine. there is no magic answer to what that number is. i think the compromise we reached was pretty reasonable. what it doesn't address, what the gentleman said earlier, each one of these 2,000 people in theory and in reality often do hold the beneficial interest of tens of thousands of people. i'm not talking mutual funds, but these are people that have the authority to direct the broker-dealer to act on their behalf. all this says, it does very similar, but it directs the s.e.c. to talk about -- to look at this specific issue and to do within six months and come back not just with

recommendations of congress but if they determine it's an appropriate issue to actually act. now, i don't think there's any disagreement that the s.e.c. has the current authority under current law to do this action if they choose to do it. all this says, rather than simply come back to congress with a proposal that if they see the appropriate thing to do is act that they should do it within six months. it's very similar on many levels, it overlaps, it's a technical difference and more specific amendment. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. schweikert: madam chair woman, i reserve the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. schweikert: madam chairwoman, i appreciate our friend from massachusetts. i do believe, though, we're about to be somewhat duplicative to the amendment we just did. i hear it's a bit more specific, but it's, i hate to say, not necessary. we just passed an amendment that i believe accomplishes

where the gentleman from massachusetts is wishing to go and i don't think this amendment is necessary and reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. capuano: madam chair, as the gentleman said in his debate on his chair, even that was unnecessary because the s.e.c. has the authority to do this now. that was unnecessary and i agree this in theory is unnecessary. the only difference is that this tells the s.e.c. that if they determine that there is a problem that they are required to act. that's the only major difference here, and act within a specific amount of time. the previous amendment also unnecessary, under current law, does ask the s.e.c. to make recommendations to congress. that's all it says. you can actually argue that that might undermine the s.e.c.'s authority to actually take action. i don't think it does but you can make that argument if you so chose. this amendment, i agree, it is overlapping but it is not fully redundant. it keeps the clarification that

the s.e.c. is empowered to act now to take action. that's the only major difference. i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. schweikert: madam chairman, i yield myself the remainder of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. schweikert: i appreciate the argument here but in the amendment we just passed we basically did what congress is supposed to do. we ask the s.e.c. to come back to us within that 120 days say, all right, here's your authority, do this, do that, here's where we see a problem, here's where we don't see a problem. actually, i think that's actually where those decisions should actually be existing. mr. capuano: yield for a question? mr. schweikert: i agree. mr. capuano: do you think the s.e.c. has power to make these actions without congress approval? mr. schweikert: reclaiming my time. i actually do. mr. capuano: if the gentleman agrees to that and agrees that his amendment -- excuse me -- his amendment, his proposal, which i agree with that we adopted doesn't undermine that authority at all, would the gentleman agree with that? mr. schweikert: will the

gentleman restate the question? mr. capuano: i simply ask the gentleman, under the amendment we just adopted, your previous amendment, do you think in any way that that undermines the current ability of the s.e.c. to take action? i would think that it doesn't, but i'm simply -- it's not a trick question. i am trying to build the record to be clear what it does. mr. schweikert: reclaiming my time. actually i think it's an interesting part of the discussion is, all right, if i do believe the s.e.c. actually has this authority, but at the same time i also believe you and i and all of us in this body are responsible for the ultimate policy that that policy should be coming back before us, particularly those of us in the financial services committee, because we're going to also see it as it ties into this whole package of legislation but also other moving parts out there. and it's substantial for that reason, i must tell you, i preferred the amendment we just adopted over the one you've offered because it does that provision of -- it comes back before us. yes, the s.e.c. may have this authority but we're also going to be the ones touching it and

saying, yes, but it needs to be in this context. . with that i reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. capuano: i don't disagree with anything the gentleman said. i happen to agree congress should exercise its responsibility. i also agree we have empowered various agencies across the government to take action on their own. the s.e.c. we agree, the s.e.c. has current action. i would argue clearly that this amendment, this bill doesn't change the s.e.c.'s authority. they were to come out with a ruling tomorrow that defined beneficial owner or owner of record in a different way, they are fully authorized to do so. all this amendment does is suggest they do. actually requires them to do so one way or the other. even if they disagree with me, this doesn't direct them to agree with me. this simply says to act if they determine they should. i would also argue if that's the determination they make they will act anyway. that's the way it should be. that's all this amendment does is try to draw a big bold line

under a poe tngs massive loophole that could be utilized by not necessarily most people but by a few people who might have an intent to defraud people. that's all this is trying to do. close one more door, obvious door, that can be used by people that shouldn't be used. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from arizona. the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. swikert: and -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman had yielded back his time. the gentleman from arizona has 2 1/2 minutes remaining to close. mr. shikert: i reserve the balance of my time. -- mr. swikert: i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona has 2 1/2 magnificent minutes to close. mr. schweikert: i move to close. i appreciate the discussion and i know we may be bordering on that line of being esso tarek. -- esoteric. i believe we took care of much

of this concern in the previous amendment. if you are with us and agree, ok, we are literally out looking at two tracks here, s.e.c. does hold authority at the same time we also want this brought back to us if the s.e.c. does see an issue. then that's the proper venue. it is the proper venue that we pass the previous amendment. therefore making this amendment -- somewhat duplicative. with that i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from massachusetts. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have t the noes have it. the amendment -- the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. peters: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: it is now in order to considered amendment number 15 printed in house report 112-409. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15, printed in house report number 112-409, offered by mr. peters of michigan.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 572, the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. peters: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. peters: i'm the co-sponsor of h.r. 3630 because i believe that this bipartisan legislation has the potential to create thousands of jobs in the coming years. my amendment improves this bill by ensuring that those jobs stay here in the united states and our local communities. when i meet with constituents, one of their top concerns is the persistent outsourcing of american jobs. between 2000 and 2009, multinational corporations cut 2.9 million u.s. jobs while adding 2.4 million jobs overseas. millions more jobs in diverse sectors such as life sciences, agriculture, and sales could be moving abroad over the next few

years. annual job losses to offshoring has been estimated to be around 300,000. those 300,000 job losses of course are significantly slowing net job creation at a time when we need it most in this country. my amendment will simply require publicly held companies to disclose where their employees are located in their annual s.e.c. filings. are their employees here in the united states or are they overseas? while there is consistent concern in this chamber regarding new regulations on businesses, i think we can all agree that employers know where they are sending their paychecks every month. and this bill specifically exempts newly public companies for five years. with unemployment above 8% and persist tentsly high unemployment rates possible in the coming years, policymakers at every level of government must look at all credible options for creating jobs.

analyzing the effectiveness of past and future job policies is difficult without knowing whether corporations benefiting from tax incentives or other policies are creating the jobs here in america or abroad. additionally, responsible invetors -- investors have a right to know how a publicly traded company is spending their money and whether they are investing in the united states or sending their resources overseas. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support the underlying bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: i rise to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, madam chair. i guess the threshold question i have to ask is how does this amendment help jump-start business start-ups? what this amendment does is

frankly require one more disclosure report, much of this, frankly, i do not believe to be germane to the underlying bill but it is here before us nonetheless. it is one more regulatory burden. it is one more cost imposed upon our job creators. it is one more piece of red tape when already the small business administration under the obama administration has reported the total regulatory cost amendment to 1 $$1.75 trillion annually which is enough money for businesses to provide 35 million private sector jobs with an average salary of $50,000. the same report from the obama administration's small business administration has reported that 65% of all new jobs in the past 15 years have come from small

business and yet these small businesses face an annual regulatory cost of $10,585 per employee. so again i begin to wonder -- i know every single report, every single study, every single regulation perhaps has some beneficial purpose, but the cumulative impact of them all, madam chair, is hurting our businesses. according to a recent chamber of commerce small business survey, 78% of small businesses surveyed report that taxation, regulation, legislation from washington is what's making it harder for their firms to hire more individuals. and what we understand from the office of information and regulatory affairs, a division of the o.m.b., during the first three years of the president's administration we have seen a 95% increase in the average number of completed regulations

deemed economically significant to our economy. almost double. the administration has currently proposed 3,118 regulations. again, at what point do you begin to say, enough is enough? i understand the purpose of the gentleman's amendment, but i think we know that we have lost far too many jobs overseas. it's not a matter of documenting the symptom, it's going to the disease. what is the root cause? we know what the root cause is. the root cause is too much red tape. it's bills like the president's health care plan, which is an anathema to small businesses across the land. 2,000 pages of legislation that has promulgated even more regulations. talk to any small businessperson in america and they will cite the president's health care program as something that's

inhibitting job growth. inhibiting job growth. this almost doubled regulations imposed. that's what's chasing jobs overseas. taxation. the president is proposing $1st9 trillion more in taxes, much of it to fall upon small businesses, and we wonder why we are losing jobs overseas? that's what needs to be documented, not the fact that it's happening but the root causes. that would be more worthy of a study, but at this point the purpose of this bill is to help bring more companies on to this i.p.o. on ramp. this is at cross-purposes and i would urge my colleagues to defeat this and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. peters: i thank you. i would like to respond to my esteemed colleague in a couple respects. one, he mentions that this is outside of the scope of the legislation. that this is really not germane to what we are dealing with. hopefully my colleague will

agree with me that this legislation is about jobs. it is about creating jobs. more importantly making sure that those jobs are here in the united states. my colleague across the aisle wants to create jobs overseas. he can do that somewhere else. he should not be doing it in legislation before us. this is about empowering american businesses to hire american workers to grow the american economy. in order for us to do that, though, we need to have information. we have to know whether or not these policies that we are implementing are indeed doing what they are intended to do which is create jobs in the united states. my colleague argues that this is somehow some incredible burden on companies to be able to report this. i want to remind my colleague that they already do report the number of employees they have that is part of the s.e.c. filings that are currently public corporations are required to file. all this does is ask where are those employees? are they in the united states or

are they overseas? to argue that this is somehow some incredible administrative burden would be to argue that somehow these companies have no idea where they are sending their paychecks and they are going to need to have some sort of expensive compliance mechanism put in place. i would argue companies know exactly where they send those paychecks each and every month. they know if they are sending them into the united states. they know if they are sending them overseas. this is easy to comply with but is absolutely essential information for those of us as policymakers that hear from companies regularly that only if we were to adopt this policy they would create jobs. well, if we adopt that policy, i would like to see those jobs are actually being created in america and not overseas. we need to have that transparency. additionally, this amendment is very careful to exempt new companies, those that are first filing. initial first five years of a start-up company do not have to file this.

what often happens with these start-up companies, they start up in the united states, when they then move to scale up operations, and really start selling products, all too often we see those companies sending those jobs overseas. and the scale up, most of the jobs, good-playing middle class jobs critical for a strong economy and strong democracy are being sent overseas. we need to know, we need to have the transparency. that's simply what this amendment does and urge adoption. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from michigan's time has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized to close. mr. hensarling: may i inquire to the chair how much time i have? the chair: the gentleman has one minute remaining. mr. hensarling: i yield the balance of our time to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mr. fincher: thank you, madam chairman, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i appreciate mr. peters' concerns, but this is about the private sector creating jobs.

as we have been here as a freshman, a year and a few months, we have to remind ourselves in this body that jobs are not created in the halls of congress. they are created in the private sector. and that's what this jobs package will do for america. it lets the private sector get back in the business of creating jobs. i a appreciate the concern, but -- i do appreciate the concern, but we are looking out for america here, not overseas jobs, but bringing back lowering unemployment and letting the private sector get back in the private' -- private sector -- driver's seat of our company. i couldn't help but hear we, we, we and us, us, us in the house. let's get back to the people and private sector. while i understand the gentleman's intention, may be to encourage more companies to keep jobs at home, i think this amendment would only add to the list of reasons a company chooses a path other than going public. which leads to less job creation

at home. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment -- for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. meters: -- mr. peters: i request a recorded roll call. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. . it's now in order to consider amendment number 16 printed in house report 112-409. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? mrs. capps: madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16 printed in house report 112-409 offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 572, the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps,

and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: thank you, madam chair. i rise today to offer a straightforward amendment to h.r. 3606, the the gentlewoman yields back -- the jump-start our business startups act. it would have the securities and exchange commission to conduct a study one year after enactment of the law to determine the increase in initial public offerings, or i.p.o.'s, resulting from this legislation. the study would include data specifically on the increases in the manufacturing and high technology industries. though i have concerns about the underlying bill, i plan to support it because i believe it will help high-tech manufacturers, specifically those in my district to grow and to hire. we must ensure these provisions are actually working and our innovative entrepreneurs and small businesses are getting the support they need. madam chair, as our nation has struggled these past few years from the economic crisis, we have taken a hard look at what

is required for our economy to grow and to thrive into the future. one thing we have all agreed upon is the need to make it in america. of course, this means rebuilding and re-energizing the american manufacturing, especially in high tech. america's greatest export has always been our innovative ideas. for decades we excelled at both imagining and building new products here in america, but in recent years we've lost so many manufacturing plants and the millions of quality middle-class jobs that came with them. small startups and local companies very replaced by large global corporations who exported our ideas and jobs overseas. this has to stop. encouraging growth and high-tech manufacturing here at home is critical to rebuild our economy to better compete in the 21st century. whether it's in clean energy, defense or computer science, the high tech manufacturers are creating jobs, spurring economic growth and helping our nation regain its rightful place as the global leader in

innovation and manufacturing. what my amendment will simply ensure this bill is actually accomplishing what it's supposed to accomplish. it will ensure that these reforms are helping high-tech entrepreneurs and small businesses grow and hire more workers. i'm fortunate in my district to see firsthand tremendous success these innovative high-tech manufacturers can have in the 21st century economy. companies like transform, innogen, wyatt technologies. they are all homegrown, often with ideas first hatched at our public universities like u.c. santa barbara. these companies and so many more like them are all innovating, expanding and creating quality, local, good-paying jobs on california's central coast. they have weathered the economic crisis better than anyone else and they have done this not by outsourcing jobs and cutting pay and benefits. they are doing it by the old-fashioned way, by

constantly innovating and outthinking their competition. they understand the critical link of education, innovation and our economy. while the reforms in the underlying bill are certainly important, we can't lose sight of the many other critical policies that help nurture and grow small businesses. as i meet with small business owners and entrepreneurs throughout my district, i hear about access to capital and cutting red tape, of course, but i also hear about the importance of funding our local community colleges and universities, protecting critical federal programs like the small business innovation research, sbir, under small business administration. this bill certainly moves us in the right direction, but we need to do so much more. we need to take up a long-term transportation bill that rebuilds our crumbling roads, bridges and railways without partisan gimmicks and giveaways. we need to address the ongoing housing crisis that continues to drag down our economy and forces families from their homes. and we need to close the gaping loopholes in our tax code that encouraged companies to ship

jobs overseas. madam chair, this bill is a positive step forward, but as many of my colleagues have pointed out, there is room for improvement. while i hope this bill can be improved as it moves forward, i plan to support it because it includes important reforms that helps small businesses. we must ensure that these reforms are actually helping the businesses that need it most, our small manufacturers and innovators. my amendment will make that happen, and i urge my colleagues to support it and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: thank you, madam chair. this again, the underlying piece of legislation is a piece of legislationes that -- legislation that is designed to ensure that small businesses have an on ramp to equity financing into the i.p.o. market. and let's recall, again, why

are we seeing so few i.p.o.'s, why are we continuing in this 8%-plus unemployment environment for over three years, the longest period of sustained high unemployment since the great depression? while i listen closely to the business people in the fifth congressional district of texas, i listen to our job creators around america and here's what i hear, john markey, c.e.o. of whole foods market, quote, in some cases regulations have gone too far and it really makes it difficult for small businesses. there's too much bureaucracy and red tape. taxes on business are very high, so we're not creating and enabling conditions that allow businesses to get started. we're trying to cut away red tape with this jobs act. andrew putzer, c.e.o., p.k.e. restaurants. quote, government just

understand how much uncertainty it creates in the economy when it attempts to regulate what the private sector does. and it really doesn't understand what the private sector does. bernie marcus, co-founder, former c.e.o. of home depot, quote, having built a small business into a big one, i can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are almost impossible to deal with. home depot would have never succeeded if we tried to start it today. let me repeat that, madam chair. home depot would have never succeeded if we tried to start it today. every day you see rules and regulations from a group of washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. and i mean every day. it's become stifling. if you're a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours and let people go. when you consider that something like 70% of the

american people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact. just three voices, madam chair, from america's job creators. again, it's not a real secret why we've had a dirt of i.p.o.'s. so i understand the gentlelady's amendment is to have the s.e.c. issue a report. number one, i would also note, since we are public filings, we would have no understanding how many companies will go public in the next year. and i understand the gentlelady's argument. i respect that but, again, it's just one more reporting burden that frankly is being placed on the s.e.c. now, we've had a debate on the ranking member's brought up many times, he's unhappy with the level of funding that the s.e.c. has received.

in fact, i would note, however, even the president of the united states in his budget is not trying to give the s.e.c. what they have requested. what the ranking member has said, first of all, studies are not done for free by the s.e.c. i think we have got a further burdening of the s.e.c. with more work. given the current decision to restrict s.e.c. funding, i would be much more careful about burdening them with studies which will come at the expense of more important duties. so, again, it's a debate that the s.e.c. have the right amount of resources. too much, too many, i don't know. that's a legitimate debate. but apparently he thought strongly enough that we should not be furthering the s.e.c. with further burdens at this time. and for all those reasons i would urge we defeat the amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: madam chairwoman, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentlelady is

recognized. mrs. capps: as i said initially, this amendment is simple and it's straightforward. it simply ensures that the provisions of the bill are actually helping small businesses grow and hire more workers. it's an amendment about oversight and accountability, and it focuses especially on the manufacturers and high-tech innovators that are so critical to future economic growth. and i would yield -- how much time remains on our side? the chair: five seconds remaining. mrs. capps: i'll yield the balance of my time to my ranking member. mr. frank: i appreciate the gentleman from texas selectively quoting me and i do not want to pile on studies but this one makes a great deal of sense. the chair: the time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: thank you, madam chairman. how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from texas has one minute remaining. mr. hensarling: thank you, madam chair, i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hensarling: in our reasons,

i think we should oppose this amendment. i don't think how much we are going to learn in one year. we didn't get into this terrible environment of high unemployment overnight. frankly, it took three years of the burdens that this administration has placed on small businesses. i don't know if we're going to get out of it overnight. so number one, i don't believe that one year's particularly helpful. but, again, we can have a debate about the root causes. we're already going to know, we're already going to know which companies go public. and at some point in time you have to see, are the benefits to be derived from the report, from the regulation worth the cost? i simply don't see it, madam chair. again, i would urge defeat of the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. and thoferse in favor will signify by saying aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not adopted. mrs. capps: madam chair.

the chair: the gentlelady from california. mrs. capps: i respectfully ask for a recorded vote. the chair: a recorded vote is requested. a sufficient number having arisen, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 17 printed in house report 112-409. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. loebsack: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in house report 112-409 offered by mr. loebsack of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 572, the gentleman from iowa, mr. loebsack, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. and the chair now recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. loebsack: madam speaker, yume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. loebsack: i first want to thank congressman fincher and the financial services committee for bringing this package further. i am glad that the house is taking the first step to help

small businesses and i hope the house will take up additional legislation to create jobs. as any iowa family can tell you, our nation is recovering from the worst recession since the great depression and congress' focus must be on jobs. our unemployment rate is still painfully high and has been a long-term problem for millions of americans and thousands of iowans. we need to be working on legislation to boost our economy and helping our small businesses flourish is an important step in that direction. this is why i'm offering this amendment to ensure provisions of this legislation are made widely available and particularly to women-owned, veteran-owned and minority owned businesses to make sure they are informed with changes that might help. small businesses will be leaders in helping our country climb out of the recession. i'm home every weekend in iowa and i hear time and again the two big problems small businesses face is access to capital and finding skilled workers. in order for this bill to be

effective, small and medium businesses must be aware of the new opportunities they will have to expand their business and raise capital. this will be particularly important for the segment of businesses i am targeting in my amendment -- women-owned, veteran-owned and minority owned businesses. specifically, my amendment would require the securities and exchange commission to provide information online and also conduct outreach to these businesses to help them utilize the changes made through this legislation. especially since it is women's history month, there's no better time to highlight the importance of women-owned businesses to our economy. it's estimated there are over eight million women-owned businesses in the united states, generating nearly $1.3 trillion in revenue and employing nearly eight million people. women-owned businesses account for nearly 36% of u.s. firms and growing in nontraditional areas as well. especially in these tough economic times that are weighing heavily on our veterans and their families, it

is also essential that we as a nation do all we can to ensure no man or woman who has served our country in uniform should have to fight for a job here at home. veterans bring to the table many of the skills necessary to run a small business as well and to be leaders in their community. veterans own 2.4 million businesses generated over $1 trillion in receipts and employed nearly six million people. minority businesses employ nearly six million people with $864 billion in receipts. all small business owners are important which is why there is a requirement in my amendment to post information about advantages changes in this bill might offer on the s.e.c. website in addition to conducting outreach for women-owned, veteran-owned and minority owned businesses. this amendment does not score, according to the nonpartisan c.b.o., and it's simply a commonsense way to ensure employers we are trying to target in this legislation are able to use their new tools to

grow our economy. these new tools, i should say, to grow our economy and create new jobs. i ask for my colleagues' support on this commonsense amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: i rise to claim time in opposition although i am not opposed to the bill. . the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. hensarling: i want to thank the gentleman from iowa for bringing this amendment to the floor. i suspect given that the s.e.c. already has a fairly comprehensive website they probably would have done the proper job in outreach on small business issues, but i think as important as the jobs act is, that his amendment is helpful to the underlying bill. i also want to thank him for working with us to tailor his amendment to the underlying bill. again it is my expectation that the s.e.c. would do this job.

this will help ensure that all the benefits of this act will be known throughout the small business community. i urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from iowa. mr. loebsack: i would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from new york. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for yielding and compliment him on his very thoughtful amendment and appreciate the support of the other side of the aisle. this amendment is aimed at supporting the growth of small and medium-sized businesses, and easing the sometimes daunting task of figuring out just what new legislation will mean to them. this amendment requires the s.e.c. to provide online information and perhaps more importantly outreach to small and medium-sized businesses. businesses owned by women,

minorities, and veterans. it is widely recognized that such businesses face a unique set of challenges. we should be doing everything we can to encouraging their growth and supporting their success. again i compliment the hard work and really meaningful amendment that my friend from the great state of iowa has put forth. i urge unanimous support of it and appreciate the support of the other side of the aisle. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back her time. the gentleman from texas. mr. hensarling: madam chairman, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from texas has four minutes remaining. mr. hensarling: i yield myself the balance of the time. again i wish to urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment. madam chair i would note this is the last amendment that we will be debating. so again i want to use this opportunity to urge all of my colleagues to support the jobs

act. we again know that jocks, economic growth, the state of our economy continues to be the most pressing issue we are facing in the nation today. it is foremost in the minds of our constituents. i want to thank the republican leader, the gentleman from virginia, for his leadership in bringing this effort to the floor. i certainly want to thank the chairman of the financial services committee, mr. bachus of alabama, and the prime author of the legislation, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fincher, who has been very active in this debate. i also want to thank the representatives, my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, to working with us again. it is challenging, most challenging to find areas of consensus. most challenging to find the ability to move bipartisan legislation. i think this is a day, a moment that can be celebrated by all members. it certainly doesn't do what we

would tote tally like done on our side of the aisle -- totally like done on our side of the aisle and i'm sure my friends on the other side of the aisle have the same thing to say. but it is a step in the right direction for allowing more start-ups to access equity capital to create more jobs for a nation in desperate need of more job growth and more economic growth. again, we know the president in his statement of administrative policy has indicated a desire to sign this piece of legislation, and i look forward to the president having that opportunity. i hope it is not our last opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis in this congress and in this year. but it is certainly a good start and something that i believe the american people will celebrate. and again i want to urge adoption of the gentleman's amendment. i want to urge all my colleagues to support the bill and let's find ways to grow this economy and get america back to work. i yield back the balance of my

time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas yields back the balance of his time -- the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back his time. the gentleman from iowa has 30 seconds remaining if he would like to close. mr. loebsack: i do appreciate the support from the other side of the aisle on this amendment. i concur with my colleague from texas in his sentiment that the american people want us to work together to get america back to work again. that's what i'm hearing when i'm home every weekend in my district. i appreciate the support from the gentlewoman from new york as well. hopefully this is the beginning of something bigger where we can work across the aisle, get america back to work, get this economy back on track. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. so many as are 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. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. hensarling: i move the committee do now rise.

the the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 3606 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. 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 h.r. 3606 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives. sir, pursuant to the permission

granted in clause 2-h of rule 2 of the rules of the u.s. house of representatives the clerk received the following message from the secretary of the senate on march 8, 2012, at 9:34 a.m. that the senate passed senate 1855. with best wishes i am, signed sincerely, karen l. haas. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately 11:45 a.m. today.

>> bill meant to free up more capital to small and medium-sized companies. until they resume here's some discussion from this morning's "washington jaorch." host: joining us is representative jackie spiers, a democrat from california. member of the armed services committee up in the house and a senior democratic whip. represent speier welcome to the "washington journal." we spent the first 25 minutes talking with our viewers about u.s. policy in syria and whether u.s. military intervention is an option as a member of the armed services, what -- armed services committee what, is your feeling about that? guest: i think if we do engage we need to do it in lib libya. where it is a joint -- in libya. where it is a joint force going in. times moving in solo trying to take over the world has to cease. so as a nato participant i would say, yes, and i think the

bloodshed that's going on there is something we cannot continue to just observe. host: do you see this as a short-term possibility? guest: i would see it as a short-term possibility. when it comes to war short-term is not two days. it's typically two months to two years. host: other issues in congress we wanted to talk about. i wanted to start with housing. there are several different housing programs, or seems there are several different housing assistance programs out there. how would you rate the federal government's efforts so far to assist people who are maybe being foreclosed on, under water, refinancing, all the different programs that are out there? how would you rate them? guest: i would give the federal government an a for effort and c for execution, because we have done a very poor job in terms of bringing the financial services industry to the table. all of the programs we have put in place have all been

voluntary, and the result is that unless the bottom line was attractive to the financial services industry, they didn't engage. meanwhile, we bailed them all out with tarp and with hindsight we should have made that part of the deal with bailing out the banks that should we be in this kind of financial meltdown that in terms of foreclosures they would fall -- they would make these programs available. much of what's being offered now is still voluntary. i think that every fannie and freddie loan in this country should be eligible for a reduction in the actual interest rate that's being offered. we put these programs into place, one you have to have an 80-20 loan to value. well, let's say you're 50-50 but you're out of work and you've got cancer. you're not going to be able to pay that mortgage. we could be providing relief by

reducing the interest rate. you reduce an interest rate from six to four, that's a significant savings to the homeowner. host: is there a taxpayer cost to that proposal? guest: no. there is a taxpayer benefit because fannie and freddie already owns the loans or guaranteeing the loans. if you lock on it, the taxpayers are going to be in the hole for even more than they would be if people stay in their homes and pay their mortgage payments. host: unemployment rate nationally, 8.3%. california, your state, 11.1%. and san mateo county, your district, 7.2%. what's the economics of your county and to tie it into the housing issue, what's the foreclosure rate at this point? is that a troublesome issue for you in your district? guest: my district, let me just kind of tell you what it's like. i have again tech, i have

youtube, and facebook. so it's a very bustling county with lots of innovation, lots of start-up companies. so we are doing better than the national average, obviously. in terms of home foreclosures, less in my area than around the country, certainly. host: but is it higher? i'm sorry, is it high for the state of california? guest: no, it is not. it's lower. host: you are doing pretty well. what's the average cost of a home in your district? guest: it's about $600,000 to $700,000. we have very high cost of living in terms of the cost of housing. host: two more issues we want to put on the table before we begin taking your calls for representative jackie speier, democrat of california. this is from reuters yesterday. eight women allege rape and retaliation in u.s. military. this just came out yesterday. tuesday, i should say.

is this a story you are following and as a member of the armed services committee are you planning on pursuing this? guest: not overwhelm am i following it, i have introduced legislation on this issue that i feel very strongly about. about 19,000 men and women are sexually assaulted or raped in the military. those are figures from 2010 from the department of defense. of that 19,000 figure, about 13% actually report the crime. and only 8% actually are prosecuted. the numbers even go lower in terms of those that are convicted. it is a system wrought with conflict of interest. it is a system in which the perpetrator gets a pass and the victim gets victimized a second time over. host: when you have talked to the military about this, what's been the response? guest: actually i have met with secretary panetta on this issue, and he was shocked. shortly after he became the new secretary of defense, he said he had zero tolerance for sexual

assault in the c.i.a. he was going to pursue that here in the department of defense. the problem is every person has said we have a zero tolerance and yet the rapes continue. the rapes continue and they are not prosecuted. so i'm very committed to changing that paradigm. host: as a senior democratic whip, let's put some politics on the table as well. has the debate and discussion in this country about contraception and its role been beneficial to democrats? guest: i think the cultural wars that have kind of percolated to the top have certainly awakened women in this country that the republican party, for the most part, dot not speak to them when -- does not speak to them when it comes to women's health care. that has been pounded by my republican colleagues since last

year. and it's been a drumbeat that they continue to beat even though there's clear indication that women in this country dealt with this issue in the 1960's. host: this was in the "wall street journal," this column we are about to show you on tuesday, i believe it was. limbaugh and our phony contraception debate is the title of the column. written by kathy cleaver ruse, general counsel for the family research council. she writes, i was not a catholic when i attended georgetown law. but i certainly knew the university was. so did miss fluke. she told "the washington post" that she chose georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to catholic teaching in its student health plan. during her law school years, she was the president of students for reproductive justice and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the

last remnants of its catholicism. miss fluke is not the every woman portrayed in the media. guest: i think the fact that it was written by the family council says it all. first of all, look at the facts. georgetown university provides contraception coverage to its employees. it does not provide contraception coverage to its students. how do you square that? in california i carried the legislation that required that if you were offering a prescription drug benefit, you must also cover contraceptive drugs. got it through the slumplete took four years, but got it through the legislature. final hour the catholic bishops came in and said we want an exemption. we gave them an exemption for what are clearly functions of the church. the church staff, the church school, but not for hospitals and not for universities because

they are much more secular in their function. what we found, catholic health care west at the time was 75% of all the catholic hospitals in california, they were already providing contraception and pills to their employees. so, this issue has long been decided. and the real question should be, why would georgetown offer benefits to its employees it doesn't offer to its students host: 737-002 for republicans. 628-0205 for all others. if would you like to talk with representative jackie speier. democrat of california, member of the armed services committee. she's currently in her third term in congress. she's also a senior democratic whip. she spent 18 years in the california state legislature. before that six years on the san mateo county board of supervisors. the first call up for her is gary in macon, missouri, on our

independent line. go ahead. caller: i'd like to ask this lady if -- i'm sure she knows. about an article i seen on abc about, been a few months ago, and the only report that i saw, about this, i thought it was a really big story, about a bridge they are building across from san francisco to oakland across the bay and nobody has reported this but the chinese are building this bridge. chinese labor. chinese companies building this bridge with chinese steel and chinese labor. and nobody is talking about this bridge. where the money come from. it's said to be the largest self-anchored suspension bridge in the world. host: all right. jackie speier, what is this bridge? guest: the oakland bay bridge as a result of the 1989 earthquake had to be changed. had to be removed.

so this is a bridge that's going to replace the bridge that has been there since the 1930's. the bridge being built by u.s. contractors and by u.s. employees, the steel, however, is from china. and when the bid was put for consideration, there was no stipulation that it had to be u.s.-only steel. so that's why as a cost to the taxpayers it was cheaper to buy steel from china than to buy it from the united states. host: next call for jackie speier comes from hermantown, minnesota, bob on our democrats line. you are on the "washington journal," bob. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. guest: good morning, bob. caller: i do think that the people that are receiving any help from the government as far as being under water on their home loans deserve it because the banks got a bailout, a.i.g.

got bailed out. and a.i.g. literally fleeced the money that they were supposed to be holding in reserve to ensure the loans -- insure the loans with. they used more of the money that we gave them to pay their executives with. and my other comment is that the keystone pipeline is going to a place in texas where it's going to be exported, and i'm all for the keystone pipeline as long as we get most of that oil at a reasonable rate. they don't sell it at market prices to europe. guest: let's start with the keystone pipeline. it's important to note that there are two issues that need to be resolved before i think the pipeline is constructed. one is the leaks.

there were more spills in the first couple of months of the existing pipeline than were expected to be over the lifetime of the pipeline. so we've got to deal with the problems of oil spills in that pipeline because it impacts our water and our sustainability generally in this country. you are right, the oil that will be piped to then be shipped will not be in the u.s. market. it's more than likely going to go to china. it's not oil that can easily be used for our energy needs here in the united states. in terms of your questions about a.i.g., the interesting thing about a.i.g. is that it survived to the extent it did with our bailout because it was an insurance company and regulated by state insurance commissioners and had to have reserves. it was when we created

gramm-leech-bliley which allowed insurance companies to become banks and bangs become insurance companies that they started to be less responsible in terms of having the kind of reserves that they typically did in the insurance industry. and that was a mistake that i believe the long made and the president, president clinton at the time, by signing graham leech bliley. host: there's been some political talk recently that the democrats are dealing pretty confident, that they could possibly retake the house. guest: i wouldn't say we are feeling pretty confident. i think we are much more optimistic than we were a year ago. lots of things have to fall our way. but our messaging is messaging that's resonating with the american people. they are not interested in culture wars. they want jobs. they want to retain the roofs over their heads. and the majority in the house under speaker boehner hasn't delivered on creating new jobs and fixing the housing crisis.

host: something that you may not know about representative jackie speier, she began her political career as a congressional aide. what is your back story very quickly? guest: in 1978 i was legal counsel to congressman ryan, who went to joanstown in south america and guyana trying to free people being held there against their will. i was on that trip with him. he was assassinated 45 times. i was shot five times and left for dead on that airstrip. as can you see it wasn't my time. so i came home and made a commitment to never take another day for granted and to commit my life to public service. host: how long did you lay there? guest: 22 hours without medical attention. host: who finally rescued you? guest: i was finally rescued by the guillen air force that took me into the capital where there was a u.s. medevac plane waiting and all of the survivors were picked up there.

host: erie, pennsylvania, laura on our republican line. are you on the "washington journal" with representative jackie speier. caller: good morning. thanks for c-span. i'm a conservative woman and i'm just kind of upset with you saying that all women or insinuating that all women are upset at the stance on contraception. first of all, this president went to the national prayer breakfast and quoted from the bible saying what jesus would do on tax policies. well, there are biblical principles that many of us think are very important. these culture issues are rooted in that. and the one that i wanted to specifically say is corinthians six, chapter six verse nine, and that is about sexual immorality. this girl at georgetown wants to engage in what the bible calls a sin of fornication and she wants us to subsidize it.

guest: i guess my response to that is it takes two. does that mean that the man that engaged in sex with her is also committing a sin? it's quite interesting that all of this is leveled on women because we have the reproductive organs. i would just suggest to you that there's nothing in the bible that says that contraceptive pills should not be made available to women. now, obviously the bible was written centuries ago, but i'm a roman catholic and i am a practicing roman catholic. when i was a kid growing up it was a mortal sin to eat meat on friday. and then after a new pope, you didn't have to abstain from eating meat on friday and it wasn't a sin anymore. why do we allow this kind of pontifical action to be so

severe and so unwilling to have any kind of flexibility? it's a mortal sin when i was a kid and it's not a mortal sin today. host: you mentioned that you are a roman catholic. about a year ago you spoke on the house floor and here's the story from the huffington post, the headline, if you could just briefly tell us this story as well. guest: it was a debate we were having on the floor about whether or not we should continue to provide funding to planned parenthood, who provides services for breast cancer, breast screenings, contraceptive pills, and 3% of their business is for abortion services. none of the federal money was going for that purpose. and one of my colleagues started talking about second trimester abortions and was reading from a book and describing a leg being sawed off. i was stunned by it.

i had a second trimester miscarriage which resulted in abortion because that's what happens when you miscarry, you have an abortion. you have either a d and c or d and e, in my case it was dilation and evacuation. i was incensed because it was not the experience i had. now, it was a painful experience for me. i lost a baby. but for him to conduct himself in the way that he did and to carry on on a particular ---particularly on something he knew nothing about and had not endured sent me through the roof. so i spoke out about it. host: next call for jackie speier comes from huntington beach, california. gary. caller: good morning. specifically since i am from california and southern california, i can see the housing crisis is not going to be fixed until the banks take a

haircut on what is owed. i'm talking about people that are in strategic foreclosures, giving up a house because the house is like $200,000 under water, and i know that they have good credit. it doesn't make any sense to keep going. and going back to earlier people saying that the banks got bailed out. they made a commitment to do the right thing. i happened at that time to be in the business so i know that i was caught totally offguard by the -- the piracy that occurred in the big banks. i include fannie and freddie in that. host: we are going to leave it there. jackie speier. guest: you're right, gary.

we have about 50 million homes in the country that are probably under water. we have five million that are in some form of foreclosure. and another two million to three million that are just being held back. we still have an inventory of homes in this country that are going to need to be repurchased. and we are not going to have the economy return until we have stabilized the housing market and we have new starts in terms of construction of homes. i do think that concept of principle reduction, which -- principal reduction, which i think is what you are suggesting, on the one hand it has merit. what people really need is relief in their monthly mortgage payments and that's why i think we need to take the lid off of the restrictions we put in place for all loans that fannie and freddie hold. all of those loans should be eligible for interest

reductions. and that could mean upwards of $500, $600, 700 a month to homeowners in more money that they'll have in their pockets as a result. host: jackie speier graduated law school from the university of california, haveings college of law. undergrad degree from u.c. davis. walter, a democrat in charlottesville, virginia. hi, walter. caller: hi. i want to congratulate the representative for her clear understanding of the complexities of every argument that she is coring this morning -- is covering this morning. she's representative of what's going on in the house of representatives, i think we are in great shape. on the subtly on the argument of contraception. the natural law which i think she understands is pretty clear. the means, the object, the end of the act. but this has gotten complicated because it is impossible for catholic services to function without support from the federal government. which clearly has got to allow the federal government to make

-- >> we are leaving this now as the house is return interesting its recess. you can watch our journal segments at c-span.org. 3606. will the gentleman from idaho, mr. simpson, kindly take the chair? 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, amendment number 17 printed in house report 112-409 offered by the gentleman from iowa, mr. loebsack, had been disposed of. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume

on those amendments printed in house report 112-409 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order, amendment number 15 by mr. peters of michigan, mr. number 16 by any capps of california. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 15 printed in house report 112-409 by the gentleman from michigan, mr. peters, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 112-409 offered by mr. peters of. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a 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 will be 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: has ever member voted? the chair: theys are 135.

the nays are 239. less than the majority voting in the affirmative, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is request for recorded vote on amendment number 16, printed in house report 112-409 by the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, on which further proceedings were postponed and which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16, printed in house report number 112-409, offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: 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 will be a two-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 yeas are 172. the nays are 236. the amendment is not adopted. there being no further amendments, under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 3606 and pursuant to house resolution 572, reports the bill as amended by that resolution back to the house with sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on

any further amendment reported in the committee of the whole? if not, the chair will put them engross. the question is on adoption of the amendment. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. 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: -- the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. i'd also like to say the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> yes, in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the house will be in order.

the house will be in order. members, please take seats. cease conversations. the clerk will read the motion. the clerk: the gentlewoman from california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 3606 to the committee on financial services with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. page 2, line 12, insert before the period the following, and discloses publicly and to the commission any political expenditures made by the issuer during such fiscal year. page three, line 21, insert before the period the following, and discloses publicly and to the commission any political expenditures made by the issuer during such fiscal year.

the speaker pro tempore: members in the back of the chamber, please cease conversations. take seats. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank. mr. frank: mr. speaker, i strongly support her recommittal motion. reference was made in the debate to this bill being one that would relieve small businesses of regulations imposed by this administration. let me be very clear, with the exception say on pay, way i strongly support, the add mcmorris rodgers of regulatory issues addressed here were not imposed by this administration. were not a result of the bill. these are long-standing things that predate this administration. so i'm for the bill but i wanted to clear up that misconception. this is not any reaction to anything that was done recently. it's making accommodation for

these small businesses with regard to things that have long-standing. i thank the gentlewoman for yielding. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. my colleagues, this is the final amendment to improve this important piece of legislation that i fully support. capital formation is the lifeblood of innovation -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. members in the back of the chamber, please cease conversations. the gentlewoman deserves to be heard. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. capital formation is the lifeblood of innovation in the 21st century as it was in our past in america. it's so essential to our national economy. just as importantly transparency is the lifeblood of our democracy. the amendments i'm offering

today will ensure that emerging growth companies nurtured under today's legislation will fully disclose their political expenditures. just as entrepreneurs deserve all the tools available to create and grow companies, voters deserve every tool to decide on public issues for themselves. since the supreme court's disastrous citizens united decision, voters across the country have been treated to a sad spectacle, not seen since the watergate era or even the guilded age. mr. speaker, i don't think the house is in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is correct. the house will be in order. members in the rear of the chamber please cease conversations. the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: thank you, mr. speaker. this year's presidential

election is bearing witness to hundreds of millions of dollars spent on behalf of the candidates -- of candidates. the vast majority of the money is coming from outside the channels of parties and candidates. unaccountable to the voters for the messages they deliver. instead, money from corporations and extremely wealthy people is now being spent through so-called nonprofits super p.a.c.s, denying and delaying disclosure or presenting it altogether. the american people deserve better. house democrats have offered comprehensive transparency legislation called the disclose act. and we should pass that bill together as soon as possible. we can begin in a work today by adopting this final amendment and passing the bill. it will not burden small businesses and it will empower the american people.

mr. speaker, this final amendment to the bill will not bill it nor will it send it back to committee. if it's adopted the bill will proceed to final passage as amended. congress can say today to the american people that we respect them. we can say we trust them to decide for themselves because they have complete information. i have always believed that sunlight is the best disinfectant. by voting for this amendment and voting for the bill, we can score two victories for the american people. we can strengthen small businesses across our country, and we can strengthen democracy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. is the gentleman from california opposed to the motion? >> yes, mr. speaker, rise in

opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mccarthy: mr. speaker, it never ceases to amaze me, i have good -- my friends on the other side of the aisle have become putting politics before jobs. they said no to dozens of jobs bills that the house republicans have put forward and no to unleashing investment in small businesses. mr. speaker, we have all been somewhere where you have seen a family, a family with a small child and the child is crying and throwing a tantrum, and the parent turns and gives the child what they want. but the child still cries. today we see another good example of something good still not being good enough for the other side. at a time when the economy is struggling, unemployment above 8% for more than 35 consecutive months, underemployment above 15%. when you have a bill here that would unshackle and unleash the

small business growth. so it is beyond me why after both subcommittees, full committee markups were provisions passed almost unanimously, this idea never came forward. a full and open debate on the floor with 15 democrat amendments and what really shocks me the most, the president of the united states offers a statement in support of the bill. . but when i read his entire statement, he never mentioned the motion to recommit or the concern. mr. speaker, it's one more time that the floor tries to come together but politics are put before job growth. so i urge all my freppeds to come together in a bipartisan fashion, the way this bill was created, to vote down this motion and support the underlying bill.

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. 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. >> i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: those favoring a recorded vote will rise, a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. this will be a 15-minute vote. the chair will reduce to five minutes the time need for any electronic vote on the question of passage. [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 expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: the nays are 243. less than the majority voting in the affirmative, the motion is not adopted.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote theys are 169. the nays are 243. less than the majority voting in the affirmative -- the vote is

now 178. 244 noes, less than the majority voting in the affirmative, the amendment is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. bachus: mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from alabama. mr. bachus: on that i demand a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be 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.]