mr. mchenry: mr.peaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and submit extraneous materials for the record on h.r. 701 as amended, currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mchenry: madam speaker, i ask unanimous -- actually, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mchenry: thank you, madam speaker. my colleagues, this is a bipartisan, straightforward bill, had unanimous support within the financial services committee. this bill codifies an intended deadline within the jobs act. this legislation simply puts a reasonable date for the deadline, for an imivive -- for an improved regulation a which came out of a bipartisan bill before the house of representatives just over a year ago. and then the jobs act that the president signed just more than a year ago. the deadline is very achievable, setting an october 31 deadline for the s

mr. mchenry. indeed he and i do serve on oversight investigations and i appreciate very much his being here today to help us by managing this piece of legislation. i believe that he and i will accomplish additional things on a bipartisan basis. this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. i'd also like to thank the staff. while i will stand here and hopefully rise to the occasion, it really takes greater people to make the occasion. these people are the staffers that work long into the night on many occasions to try to reach a consensus on legislation. the staff really put a lot of time into this piece of legislation, mr. speaker, and i think they should be complimented. i especially would recognize one staffer in particular, ms. core. this is her last week in our congressional office. she worked with us on this piece of legislation. finally, i'd like to thank our veterans. mr. speaker, we stand here in the well of the house answered joy many of the freedoms that we have because there are people who

mr. mchenry. >> thank you, secretary lew, for your service to the government. back to the irs question, a few more questions. when you are white house chief of staff, i assume you are just as then as you are today. is that fair? returning to the scandal within the irs, the irs targeting conservative groups. >> i was not aware of the issue -- of this investigation or of the facts we have come to know. it was not on my radar at the time. >> you are not aware of the i.g. audit at the time. >> i learned about the audit march 2013. >> were you aware of an internal investigation of the irs prior to that? >> no, i was not. >> you as chief of staff, did you hear news reports about the irs targeting conservative groups? >> i was not aware of any facts at the time -- >> i am asking a separate question than you are answering. i have heard the answers given prior to that. i do not want to talk over you. what i do want to restate the question. at the time you were chief of staff, did you read or hear of the allegation that the irs was targeting conservative groups? >> i do

mr. mchenry. >> thank you, secretary lew, for your service to the government. back to the irs question, a few more questions. when you are white house chief of staff, i assume you are just as then as you are today. is that fair? returning to the scandal within the irs, the irs targeting conservative groups. >> i was not aware of the issue -- of this investigation or of the facts we have come to know. it was not on my radar at the time. >> you are not aware of the ig audit at the time. auditearned about the march 2013. >> were you aware of an internal investigation of the irs prior to that? >> no, i was not. >> you as chief of staff, did you hear news reports about the irs targeting conservative groups? >> i was not aware of any facts at the time -- >> i am asking a separate question than you are answering. i have heard the answers given prior to that. i do not want to talk over you. what i do want to restate the question. at the time you were chief of staff, did you read or hear of the allegation that the irs was targeting conservative groups? >> i do not recal

mr. mchenry: thank you, mr. chair. this debate has actually -- is actually really bizarre. the president asked for a cost-benefit analysis for independent regulatory agencies in an executive order. it's absolutely bizarre because the chairman of the s.e.c., then mary schapiro, committed in writing to congressman garrett and i and congressman issa, committed in writing to a cost-benefit analysis. chairman schapiro even in 2011 agreed to a retrospective review of offering and reporting requirements and posting this on a, quote, webpage, seeking input. so the complaints on the other side of the aisle seem absolutely bizarre because we have commitments. what we're trying to do is codify in law what was a process, a former chairman of the s.e.c. committed to. we want to make sure this is not ad hoc, that is goes forward, that it's in the statute and that it's clear. why are we doing this? well, we heard from the other side of the aisle we need to focus on investor protection. there's another part of the s.e.c. which is supposed to foster capital formation. now, what is capital f

mr. mchenry. >> not to bring the subject matter back to that hearing, but i'm sorry mr. hicks, the senate is in charge of those types of movements of our ambassadors in the confirmation process. but i hear there is a wide variety of islands to the south of florida that are lovely. but the subject matter of today's hearing is to get at the root cause and the root facts of an awful tragedy that occurred. the mismanagement and a political coverup that resulted from that mismanagement and a rush to judgment by some very ambitious political operatives with in washington. at least that near as i can tell, having gone into the facts as we have today and knowing what we know today. so i want to thank all three of you gentlemen for your service. and i want to say to you that the tough treatment you have gotten as a result of not only on that day in september, but since then is a horrible tragedy. i want to go back to mr. goudy's line of questions. was there protocol within the consulate in the event of a protest? >> yes, there was. >> was there any evidence when you were there in

mr. mchenry. >> not to bring the subject matter back to that hearing, but i'm sorry mr.hicks, the senate is in charge of those types of movements of our ambassadors in the confirmation process. but i hear there is a wide variety of islands to the south of florida that are lovely. but the subject matter of today's hearing is to get at the root cause and the root facts of an awful tragedy that occurred. the mismanagement and a political coverup that resulted from that mismanagement and a rush to judgment by some very ambitious political operatives with in washington. at least that near as i can tell, having gone into the facts as we have today and knowing what we know today. so i want to thank all three of you gentlemen for your service. and i want to say to you that the tough treatment you have gotten as a result of not only on that day in september, but since then is a horrible tragedy. i want to go back to mr. goudy's line of questions. was there protocol within the consulate in the event of a protest? >> yes, there was. >> was there any evidence when you were there in

mr. mchenry, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 701, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 701, a bill to amend a provision of the securities act of 1933 directing the securities and exchange commission to add a particular class of securities to those exempted under such act to provide a deadline for such action. the speaker: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 416, the nays are 6. 2/3 of those being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinis

mr. mchenry. >> thank you, secretary lew, for your service to the government. back to the irs question, a few more questions. when you are white house chief of staff, i assume you are just as then as you are today. is that fair? returning to the scandal within the irs, the irs targeting conservative groups. >> i was not aware of the issue -- of this investigation or of the facts we have come to know. it was not on my radar at the time. >> you are not aware of the i.g. audit at the time. >> i learned about the audit march 2013. >> were you aware of an internal investigation of the irs prior to that? >> no, i was not. >> you as chief of staff, did you hear news reports about the irs targeting conservative groups? >> i was not aware of any facts at the time -- >> i am asking a separate question than you are answering. i have heard the answers given prior to that. i do not want to talk over you. what i do want to restate the question. at the time you were chief of staff, did you read or hear of the allegation that the irs was targeting conservative groups? >> i do