signed off saying internal controls were adequate and one of the things you point out is that sarbanes oxley was meant to assure americans that officers would be held responsible for signing off on these kind of documents and should be held accountable so what is accountability look like is it fines is it criminal case what is it in this case oh i would like it to be jail time and i think most of the actual pros are looking at this and they are just whacked for it because it just shows you the degree of financial literacy in congress when they can't even properly question john. and you know get a straight answer out of the guy and you know none of us believes that john core design is innocent he's sincere nobody who's competent who is a financial professional so you mentioned congress but i want to stick on regulators for one more moment because it seems like with this example you gave us our brains oxley it seems like you have a disaster like enron and then you have an effort to regulate so that it doesn't happen again like with sarbanes oxley and then you have the same practices that conti

capuano: sarbanes-oxley. bipartisan. all this radical amendment does is simply say that we're all going up from 60% to allow 80% of the businesses to be exempted from these provisions. now, i don't think that's radical by any definition. i think that's reasonable and the truth is i have some he's tansy even at these numbers but i do believe this is worth trying because it's worth taking a shot to see if some relief will help. at the same time it is not a wise provision to take a complete step backwards, to say to ininvestors that you're going to go in blind, you're going to be exempted from audits. this bill doesn't do. that i don't think that's the attempt. -- i don't -- do that. i don't think that's the attempt. i think this bill has an underlying good purpose and i'd like to be able to support it. but i think that the bill goes too far, particularly, particularly in this provision. by going from 60% to 80% in one fell swoop, i think the risks are too high, having gone through the problems of the early 2000's, the prob

part of that is the sarbanes-oxley bill, and certain features within sarbanes-oxley are enormously complex and expensive to comply with. so what our bill does, it says if you're a small company -- relatively small company, specifically, less than $5 billion in revenue and less than $7 billion in public flow -- the amount of stock's that trading -- then you can do an i.p.o. without having to comply with all of the sarbanes-oxley regulations immediately. over time, you'll have to. if you either exceed those -- those caps, those thresholds that i mentioned, or within five years, in any case, you have to comply like everybody else does. but at least you have that opportunity to grow into the ability to afford the expense that is associated with it. now, a companion measure to had bill, identical version in the house, was considered by the house financial services committee and that passed actually just a week ago, passed the financial services committee by a vote of 54-1. 54-1. this is not very controversial. this is very broad, bipartisan support and this is the kind of legislation that's goi

they would in an ipo by selling shares on line but without all of the regulation set down by sarbanes oxley. this bill is headed to the senate. >> crowd funding will be the law of the land. >> in exsang for equity. >> yes. >> you make it easier for start-ups to raise a few bucks. >> sarbanes oxley is designed to protect you and crack down on the fraud of the 90s and 2000. enron ond world com. smaller companies say all of the rules, they spend too much time on rules, not making the product. this will make it easier. very controversial. >> interesting too. >> 6:26. still to come on "today in the bay," a home burns to the ground. why fire crews had to stay back and watch it burn. police are looking for a missing mother after her son kills his sister and himself. >> after the relentless rain a lot more on the way. this is on the way to our city. i'll let you know when it's slated to arrive and tomorrow is st. patrick's day. i've got that forecast as well. >> as we look at highway 24, things are moving smoothly but i have a sigalert for 242 and another accident and fence taken out a car on a bri

we're not for sarbanes-oxley which would require independent directors. we're not for dodd-frank which will require severing part of the banking system. so i can't ever come up with any reconnection that seems to satisfy the trend. i would love to hear if there are any. >> well, let me try. >> on this question of performance and reward and the bailout, i don't know anyone except for maybe jon corzine and a few others on wall street who are happy with what had begun in 2008. i know president obama wasn't. this was recognized by all as a massive deviation from what capitalism should all be about done under necessity, and i don't think anyone, conservative or liberal would cry that much to say that those people morally should never have been bailed out and were only bailed out because it was said to be necessary. it's something that you do when you hold your nose. on the other hand, here's the point, we've held our nose and done it, and we know that in that sector, i think the profits that people make have very little claim morally to our affirmation. if you

, professor gulchman is here, all of whom played very central roles in the formulation of the sarbanes-oxley certainly, and certainly in its implementation as well. so it's a pleasure for me to be here. you made reference to former fdic chairman sheila bair who i think was an outstanding leader of the fdci. sheila told me two things before she left, one, being chairman of the fdic is a very tough job, and i can now vouch for that. the second thing, and so she was right on that point. the second thing she told me was, "everything will be okay," before she left. that she wasn't quite as right. [ laughter ] >> she didn't tell you about europe? >> and some other things as well, but if nothing else, it's been an interesting and challenging experience. and i think the role of the fdic during the course of this financial crisis really has been a very important one, and i think if i may say, i think history will look back upon the performance of the fdic over these past three or four years and i think the performance will hold up pretty well. two things i really wanted to talk with you about this af

maybe not for all, but when it involves agency corruption, why not have something similar to sarbanes-oxley? is that completely impossible? i know it's not part of the debate, but you have that model now. >> part of the issue is often the front person, not the decisionmaker is who signs now, right? so are we going to make the head of the agency sign the foia response letters? because it's a practical matter. that's in part one of the reasons why the earliest sanctions i spoke of getting that court order that went nowhere, then the question is well, who's the responsible official and they decide nobody was the responsible official. then what do you do? right? so i am after 40 years having sort of more rules, which assumes that there is a means to execute them and enforce them. you know, i'm not really -- i haven't seen that was really -- i mean, it is good. but you shouldn't bank at all that, you know, it's going to mean anything. and we -- we should be thinking more creativity and i realize this is a law school and that may be sacrilegious, but we should be thinking more creativity about, y

the sarbanes-oxley has a law where the ceo of a company and the chief financial officer has to sign off on the financial statements and they are personally liable. >> yep. >> why not when it comes to foia where you have an agency official who has a self-interest because you're investigating agency c

that now you can only get -- >> what happened of course, sorry, that blew up and we had sarban sarbanes oxley >> some people would argue we overcorrected very dramatically. >> some would say we didn't. but this does remove some of the barriers for a company that is -- it's very expensive to go public. massively expense such. to be a public company, all the regulations, it makes it prohibitive for a small company to go to the public markets. this changes that. >> rafe needleman wriefs about many things. check it out there. thanks for being with us. we'll be back in just a minute. >>> that's our show for this week. my thanks to guests peter uhl and ryan howard. san francisco chronicle did an interesting profile of ryan a couple of years ago. we' added that link. press here tv.com. i'm scott mcgrew. thank you for making us a part of your sunday morning.

the beftd known is the sarbanes oxley. >> it's important to protect the public, but when smaller companies have to start complying with all of these rules -- i think what we will then see is more companies choosing to go public, and then creating >> susie: so what speficay would you propose to turn this situation around? >> my particular focus has to do with the initial public offerings, and making it simpler and less expensive for emerging companies to go public in this country. and separate from the ipo issue, but still important is has to do with the corporate tax environment. the president has made a good start with respect to his proposal to reduce corporate taxes. but the fact is, we're seeing -- and i've had a lot of conversations with ceos around the country and different industries. we need to make sure we're prepareed to compete with the taxs in some of the other countries so that companies don't move. that's another big issue. all of this is wrapped in together in terms of how do we make our country more competitive. >> susie: many people sympathize with your argument about taxs

gensler to help craft the financial reform legislation of that period in 2002 called the sarbanes-oxley act. in between this busy time, mr. gensler managed to co-author a fine book targeted to ordinary americans about investing and finance called "the mutual fund trap." it guides ordinary americans in the sometimes complex world of investment. it's a critique of the mutual fund industry and some of its practices. and an endorsement for an approach to investing called indexing. i won't elaborate on the book here, but you can buy the book for yourselves at your favorite book seller. but we are delighted and honored to have chairman gensler with us today to talk about financial reform and what it means. so thanks very much, chairman gensler. [ applause ] >> thank you very much -- let's just make sure we got that. thank you very much for that very kind introduction. the mention of the book. i'm wondering whether -- i don't think it's in any bookstores anymore. it's kind of a -- am zon. yeah. it was kind of a neat experience. my kids will read it one day. but good morning. i'd like to thank

relieves the emerging growth companies of the pretty hefty burden of complying with 404-b of sarbanes-oxley. it allows them to escape obligations of providing a three-year audited financial statements, and these things, although i think are good for our systems and controls, are costly and do bring a toll. but, you know what, mr. chair, say-on-pay is not costly. it is not burdensome and it empowers investors and makes them more engaged and gives them greater reason to be plugged into what the company is doing. and so i also have a letter i'd like to submit to the record, too, and this letter is from the council of institutional investors, and what they say is they're concerned about the section that would waive say-on-pay because it would not have shareholders voice their concern about executive compensation packages. so, mr. chair, i have with me today members who have some -- want to offer some remarks in support and so for the moment i'll reserve. how much time do i use up? the chair: the gentleman has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. ellison: ok. so i'll reserve for now and allow the gentle

great deal of paperwork that we fill out when we're dealing with different federal groups or sarbanes-oxley or whatever. there's a lot of paperwork. i'm just suggesting we're already doing that and government says i need you to fill out this compliance checklist, you're taking people away from the work to to do the paperwork. that's why we'd object. >> very quickly, if i can make a note this is the danger of sending an engineer sometimes. but i'm told we'd have the same concerns and we'd object. >> gentlemen, thank you. mr. chairman, thank you.

i have called for repealing sarbanes-oxley which is really hurting american business. senator santorum helped pass it. on economic issues i am much much more conservative than senator santorum. more importantly on big long- term vision lofl things like an americaning in plan, like a personal social security account for young americans, like projects on brain science for alzheimers and autism and parkinsons and mental health. we're a different kind of people. i represent reagan tradition of very large ideas. he represents being a team player on a washington team. this is not the same kind of conservatism. >> schieffer: mr. speaker, we always appreciate you stopping by and answering the questions. thank you so much. i'm sure we're going to be talking to you further down the trail. returning now to robert gibbs who comes to us from a different side of the street. he of course is the former press secretary to the current president, barack obama. and he's one of the senior advisors in the campaign. robert, how does all this look to you right now? how are the obama people fe

increase for our economics group in this 2013 proposed budget is that the ten-year review of the sarbanes-oxley rules will fall about that time. there will be an enormous amount of economic work that need to be done in connection with that. >> can you divvy up some of that rule-making or regulatory re view among the commissioners so that each of you that you assign to each of the commissioners, the he -- not you. because you still have to run the place. but the other four different responsibilities. >> i haven't thought about it. it's an interesting idea to have the people take the lead on different parts of that. we'll certainly talk about that. >> just trying to figure out -- that way you have more hands in and trying to get it all done. on the regional office, i was pleased that you mentioned the review of the 11 regional offices. how do you suspect you'll go through the process of trying to figure out whether or not some of those could can be closed with -- but not lose the functionality of what those people do. >> one of the recommendations you know that comes out of the dodd/frank require

great deal of paperwork that we fill out when we're dealing with different federal groups or sarbanes-oxley or whatever. there's a lot of paperwork. i'm just suggesting we're already doing that and government says i need you to fill out this compliance checklist, you're taking people away from the work to to do the paperwork. that's why we'd object. >> very quickly, if i can make a note this is the danger of sending an engineer sometimes. but i'm told we'd have the same concerns and we'd object. >> gentlemen, thank you. mr. chairman, thank you. >> thank you for your questions. i think you got to the heart of the matter quickly. and now we turn to mr. rodgers. >> thank you, thanks for the witnesses as well. i think one of the big problems that we run into this is that we haven't sounded the alarm bell. i think in all of the circles of people who look at this every day, all the security shops, the i.t. security shops across america, they know what the problem is. average users don't see it. and that's why there's just -- there's no hue and cry about how we get this fixed. you talk -- each of

on accounting costs and all the other routines that were brought upon by sarbanes-oxley. they ignore that the largest source is not the sarbanes-oxley 404 audit costs, they're the investorss' fees. there is nothing in this legislation that will affect those. in the case of groupon, investor bankers were paid 20 times when the auditors were paid. if you ask whether they'd rather have a solid auditing practice going forward to ensure that the investing dollars are wisely used, i'd say they prefer that than paying large fees to investor bankers. in the case of lincoln, the underwriters were paid 18 times what the auditors were. the notion that the sarbanes-oxley auditing costs and accounting procedures are really what's stopping a business person from deciding to go ahead ignores the fact that compared to the investment banker fees, which they'll still have to pay, these costs are somewhat insignificant in comparison. theoretically, this bill is supposed to promote the flow of capital from emerging businesses but in practice it would likely promote and continue to promote fe

we spend a decade arguing about sarbanes-oxley. we have multiple hearings. we have multiple debates on the floor. we have people come testify for pro or con. whether you're for it or not, it passed, with lots of public debate. and i know there's some people that still think those regulations are too onerous and yes, we are trying to relax them where we can. but a blanket exception for companies up to $1 billion in revenues? i think that's going a little too fark far, a little too fast. we have senior citizens to give some guidance and protection to. we have the middle class that is struggling from this recession. they depend on us to set the rules of the road. now, this isn't about big brother, big sister government. people have to make their own choices. but when people make choices on the unts ne internet based on ws like an official documentation, they assume that someone either at their state capital or national capital has framed these rules and regulations in way that give them a fighting chance. we don't want to legalize fraud. and that's about what t

i'm a believer that sarbanes-oxley is an example.in place to prevent from what i can tell to prevent the next enron or worldcom. so what it's done is killed the ipo. so, the public markets are much less accessible. >> what's the problem specifically with sarbanes-oxley when it comes to the tech ipo? >> sarbanes-oxley just introduces a new category of regulation and controls and responsibilities for companies financial staff, legal staff, board, audit committee. that translates to enormous amount of time, energy attention to management that's busy building their company. legal liability, personal certification of financials by the ceo and cfo. i'm not in favor of another enron or worldcom but most companies i work with aren't out to defraud anyone. the big frauds haven't come out of the valley. i think it's been a hammer applied to a whole series of industries when it was intended to address a special circumstance like enron. >> i want to turn the conversation to china. you're on the board of hp, manufacture stuff in china. are we eve

regulations that is strangled and held back the ipo market since the passage of way back of the sarbanes-oxley law. this bill provides american entrepreneurs to the access to the capital they need to seek their dreams. it provides the venture capital investors with the exit strategy to make the dreams a reality that creates a welcoming environment. with that, i believe the jobs acts is a common sense bill. >> the gentleman's time expired. the gentleman woman from california is reek niezed. >> i yield to mr. himes, three minutes. >> the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i rise today very excited about what we're about to do on this floor. as has been said over the course of many hours, we're about to pass legislation that will be good for the core strength of this country for our entrepreneurs. for our small banks that we trust to provide credit in our communities. this is a good bill. i'm sorry that it's been marred by a couple of things that have been the topic of much discussion today. i'm sorry that the republican majority has used this d

away at the, at the albatross of the strangulations of the ipo market since the passage of the sarbanes-oxley law. this bill provides the american en tre tre netrepreneurs with t they need to seek their dreams. and it provides investors with the exit strategies they need to create a well coming environment. with that, i believe that the jobs act is a commonsense bill and i support this legislation. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. >> i yield. >> and thank you, madam chair, and i rise today excited about what we are about to do on the floor. as has been said over the course of many hours, we are about to pass legislation that will be good for the core strength of this country, and for the entrepreneurs and the small bangs thbang s th -- small banks that we trust to provide cap nal the communities. it is a good bill, but sorry that it is marred by the topic of conversation today and sorry that the majority has used this to promote the kennard and not my word, but bruce bartlett's word, which i think that means baloney that the main problem with

again, when you're looking at the compliance cost of sarbanes-oxley they don't scale with the business0 million business but it's substantial and a deterrent to accessing the capital markets for a $300 million business. 24 rolls them back in a thoughtful way. i would call for further thoughtful examination, of course, for businesses of all sizes but this will allow many small an mid cap businesses to access the public capital markets. in addition, it allows people to invest in startups, a concept that's called crowd funding which is very exciting, of course, heretofore essentially investing in startups are limited to accredited investors. that's not just some investor who goes through some possess of getting acredited, it's somebody who is wealthy. they have to be worth several million dollars an then all of a sudden they're acred. we know that some wealthy people are poor investors an some are good investors, one's wealth has nothing to do with how accredited or how good an investor one is and falllies who are worth $100,000 or $300,000 are perfectly within their rights under current

. -- sarbanes oxley.ld you plan to repeal those two major -- which are really choking our ability to innovate and create jobs and so forth? [applause] >> yes. there's a direct answer. let me tell you -- one of the challenges we have is, again, we have in washington people who spend their lives in washington and do not understand when they write a piece of legislation what impact that will have in the private sector. how many lives will be affected by it? i do not think the president understands that the pieces of legislation he has put in place has made it harder for our economy to recover. by the way, that little phrase -- harder for the economy to recover -- let's translate that. it means millions of people out of work. it means people suffering. i go across the country -- i meet entrepreneurs who are successful building enterprises, i meet men and women who are having a hard time, who cannot find work. i was with one gentleman who was over 70. he said i thought i would be retired by now but i cannot af

i didn't hear you mention anything about sarbanes-oxley.n to basically repeal those two majors, which are choking off our ability to innovate and create jobs and so forth? >> yes. [applause] there's a direct answer. but let me tell you, one of the challenges we have is again, we have in washington people who have spent their life in washington in many cases and don't understand that when they write a piece of legislation what kind of impact that's going to have in the private sector, how many people's lives will be affected by it. i don't think the president understands that the pieces of legislation he has put in place have made it harder for our economy to recover. by the way, that little phrase, harder for the economy to recover. let's translate that it means millions of people out of work. it means people suffering. i go across the country, i don't just meet successful interpret nurs. i meet men and women who can't find work. i was with one gentleman over 70. he said i thought i would be retired by now but i can't afford to given this e

professor goldschmidt is here, all who played central roles in the formulation of the sarbanes-oxley certainly and then, and in its implementation as well. so it's a pleasure for me to be here. you made reference to former fdic chairman sheila bair, who i think was really an outstanding leader of the fddic. sheila told me two things before she left. she said one, being chairman of the fdic is very tough job and i can now vouch for that. and the second, so she was right on that. the second thing she told me was, everything will be okay before she left. that she wasn't quite as right. [laughter] >> tell you europe? >> and some other things as well. but, if nothing else, it's been an interesting, it's been an interesting and challenging experience. and i think the role of the fdic during the course of this financial crisis, really has been a very important one and i think, if i may say, i think history will look back upon the performance of the fdic over this past three or four years and i think the performance will hold up pretty well. two things i really wanted to talk with you about

professor goldschmidt is here, all of whom have really played central roles in the formulation of the sarbanes-oxley certainly a man and its implementation as well. so is a pleasure for me to be here. he made reference to former fdic chairman sheila bair, who i think was an outstanding leader of the fdic. sheila told me two things before she left. that one, being chairman of the fdic is a tough job and i cannot vouch for that. the second thing -- and so she was right on that point. the second thing she told me with everything would be okay. before she left. that she wasn't quite as ray. [laughter] and some other things as well. but if nothing else, it has been an interesting and challenging experience and i think the role of the fdic during the course of this financial crisis burley has been a very important one and i think if i may say history will look back upon the performance of the fdic over the past three or four years then i think the performance will hold up pretty well. two things that i really wanted to talk with you about this afternoon. i want to take just a moment to talk about the cond

they will repeal sarbanes-oxley. and on the very first day of the new administration, i will sign all three of those repeals to clear the slate and focus on getting positive things done to create jobs in america. and on the first day, about two hours after the inaugural address, i will sign a series of executive orders. the first one will abolish all of the white house czars as of that moment. [cheers and applause] >> we will on that very first day move the embassy from tel aviv to jerusalem in defense of israel's right of sovereignty. we will on that first day reinstate ronald reagan's mexico city policy and no taxpayer money will be spent on abortion outside of the united states, period. [cheers and applause] >> the obama administration apologizes to radical islamist religious fanatics while attacking the catholic church and right to life institutions to the united states. on the very first day i'll issue an executive order repealing every anti-religious act of this administration. [cheers and applause] >> and to g

but this is one of those reforms of sarbanes-oxley that was picked up from the securities side and moved over to the commodities side that somebody can't have an oil trading research effort sort of influencing the trading desk and vice versa. we're going to build on these by finalizing capital and margin roles and segregation rules for these dealers as well. financial reform further means something to investors, consumers and businesses in america -- see the theme repeating itself -- through market integrity. reforms will protect end users from fraud, manipulation and other abuses in the swap market as well as the burdens that may arise from excessive speculation. see, markets work best when you actually can have rules of the road and a cop on the beat. and we learned that in the 1930s in the great reforms of that era in the securities and futures world. so market integrity is critical. dodd-frank act closed a significant gap in our authorities to pursue manipulation charges in the marketplace. one by extending it to swaps and, two, by mirroring the securities and exchange commission's a

paul, you don't look at the tv screen and say he's got a great form for saving sarbanes-oxley, you get all of the details. mitt will talk about them and put them out there. but in the end, it comes down to are you going to grow jobs and get this economy moving? the answer from mitt romney is yet. >> i concede the point. i just want to read from the exit polls last night, the two most important issues, the economy, 55% felt the economy was the most important issue. of that group, romney 47%, santorum 29%, the second most important issue, again from the exit polls, the budget deficit, 24%, romney, 48%, santorum, 30%. can santorum possibly compete with romney on the economy? i know santorum tried to pivot last night, chris. but right now from the michigan polls, romney is the prohibitive favorite because he does have that new plan. >> larry, i think for santorum to be competitive he has to be a little less rick santorum and i think romney needs to be a little more mitt romney. what i mean by that is rick santorum needs to basically say, you know, what i'm the grandson of a coal miner, i h

the bill undoes parts of sarban sarbanes-oxley passed to better protect investors, it also undoes part/frank act. that law less than two years old. that came after our recent crisis on wall street. this bill allows small investors to fund companies like internet start-ups at a much earlier stage and says those companies need to provide far less factual information. they can even advertise they're looking for investors. it would also raise the cap on the number of private investors. technically there are two laws involved. the house bill is called the jobs act, but that means jump start our business start-ups, and then the senate's is called crowd fund or capital raising online while deterring fraud and unethical nondisclosure act of 2012. the bill needs to go one more time through the house and the president is expected to sign it. despite the fact that wall street vehemently opposes it as do unions, the aarp, even the head of the securities and exchange commission. now, whether you agree or disagree, the take away on this is it's another big win for silicon valley. remember the tech i

high-tech has been pushing for this law, which would undo some of sarbanes-oxley passed after the disaster of enron. it does part of the barely dry ink law dodd/frank act which gave investors a say in the way laws are paid. this allows small investors like you and me to fund companies like internet start-ups at a much earlier stage and says those companies need to provide far less factual information. okay, technically there are two laws, they both have great names. there there's the house bill called the jobs act. it means jump start our business start-ups. the senate version is called the crowd fund act, or, capital raising online while deterring fraud and unethical nondisclosure act of 2012. >> you can't fit 2012 in there. >> the two have to be reconciled, we have one more pass through the house and the president presumably will sign it. will this create jobs? certainly more money flowing into small business, probably going to create jobs, certainly better than less money flowing in. one of my guests this weekend, he's raised $100 million in venture capital, he's grown his company box f

take the s.e.c., take sarbanes-oxley a little bit back so we can start these up? is that about right? >> it just helps small companies go public or capitalize at a higher level with more investors without falling under this very expensive rules, so it doesn't cost taxpayers anything. it's easy. the -- it's ain't partisan issue. it makes sense, so the fact that they want passage just means that they want to stick something else on it to get it through at the same time, and, unfortunately, the senate is notorious for that. >> you don't know what it is they want to stick on it? >> yeah. they tried to stick the export bank on to this thing today, but they were trying to increase how much that was capitalized on by 40%. larry, this is a program that started with a $5 million cap. now it's at $140 billion, and every country just keeps raising the ante. it's a lot of loan guarantees for the american taxpayer. it's something we need to debate, and there need to be some reforms. i think most people agreed to that, but senator reid wanted to add that to the jobs bill becaus

and a reduction in the costly integrity burdens contained in the sarbanes-oxley 404-b accounting rules. companies can spend less time on paperwork and more time on raising capital, growing their businesses. these are companies that have the potential to be the next groupon, yelp or linkedn and all of which had recent initial public offerings. the jobs act would enhance capital formation needed to build new businesses, expand existing businesses and create jobs. it would put into place several important and in some cases overdue reforms that would incentivize initial public offerings or i.p.o.'s, end of quote. part of the beauty of this bill, madam president, is we don't even know who will benefit from its policy reforms. it applies to everybody. it's the opposite of the crony capitalism that provided government funds to companies like solyndra and general motors. indeed this is legislation that will demonstrate what the private sector can do when government promotes freedom and opportunity. it will show that we don't need government to try to create jobs or make ham-fisted attempts to

was it the beginning with sarbanes-oxley or something else that happened?it, with he want to make sure there's transparency and investors are protected but i think the bill that passed the house last week was actually an important chunk of it sponsored by our congressman in delaware john carney is right. it basically provides what they're calling this on-ramp so that the bigger you'd get, the bigger the burden that kicks in, so smaller companies have less of a burden, less expensive for them to go public. >> i was kidding when i said, you know i'm a democrat but check this out. here is "the huffington post." "congress creates jobs for fraudsters, shills and wall street analysts." this is the jobs bill that will make it easier for ipos to get started. >> well, look, i think there's a happy medium here and we certainly want -- >> this isn't it here? it gets worse, but this is typical for this, i don't know what to call this outlet here, but and then i listen to the rest, you're constantly talking about being nice to business. you just don't get the message fr

this act, for example, you'll have to be a billion-dollar company before -- to fully comply with sarbanes/oxleyu are a small company costs you a couple million dollars. putting an on ramp to that really makes it much easier for companies to go public versus to sell out to some big company. and the companies who go public typically create more jobs than those sold to an ibm or oracle. this is a wonderful thing that the speak ear the leader is pursuing. >> eric, did you ever know you were one of the elites of the republican -- it's weird suddenly that if you are backing romney you become one of the republican elites. one of the establishment-type republicans. i just was wondering whether you knew you were one and how you felt about it. >> all of a sudden, joe. all of a sudden. look. what romney is doing is beginning to attract those of white house really believe in free enterprise. and he -- mitt romney has got a tremendous track record in the free enterprise economy. i mean, tom, you've had the experience. you've built businesses. so has mitt romney. you've created jobs. so has mitt romney. and

and let's remember, you know, sarbanes/oxley was a reaction to enron. but why in the world we'd impose that on a small business that has nothing, no characteristics in common, it's a totally different universe. i just think this makes a lot of sense to help emerging companies raise the capital they need. >> and, yet, senator toomey, there are several democratic senators who are strongly opposed to this who are voicing their opposition, including carl levin. what happens to this bill on the senate floor? >> so, my understanding of what's going to happen or what's likely to happen is senator reid has announced that the house passed bill, which mind you, had only 23 no votes and about 390 yes votes, that will be the base text. and several democratic proposals will be offered to amend that. it's my understanding that that will require a 60-vote threshold to pass any of those amendments. i think it's unlikely that they'll be successful in watering down the bill in the ways that they would like to, so i'm hopeful that the senate will give a big bipartisan vot

sarbanes-oxley.ld you plan to repeal those two major -- which are really choking our ability to innovate and create jobs and so forth? [applause] >> yes. let me tell you -- one of the challenges we have is, again, we have in washington people who spend their lives in washington and do not understand when they write a piece of legislation what impact that will have in the private sector. how many lives will be affected by it? i do not think the president understands that the pieces of legislation he has put in place has made it harder for our economy to recover. by the way, that little phrase -- harder for the economy to recover -- let's translate that. it means millions of people out of work. it means people suffering. i go across the country -- i meet entrepreneurs who are successful building enterprises, i meet men and women who are having a hard time, who cannot find work. i was with one gentleman who was over 70. he said i thought i would be retired by now but i cannot afford to give in this econ

sarbanes/oxley has almost made it a necessity on the part of a ceo. you cannot talk up your company anymore. so i love the fact that everybody right now has their expectations down and low and more than heekly we'll be pleasantly surprised. i think that global growth story is still very much intact. we talk about china slowing. 7% is sustainable. you don't want to see growth rate over 10% or 11%. so all of that, and i guess what i'm traying to say is when the markets really heat up, those of us that are bullish get concerned. when they slow down a little bit, that actually keeps us bullish and i think that's really why we'll see more traction with this move. >> all right, jack, still around. good to have on. we'll get joe's thoughts, as well. banks and policy maker, economists have all been gathering for the latest workshop. silvia is there for us. i like september, it's a little warmer. but it's rather nice. i suppose the question is sustainability of the u.s. economic model this time compared to last year you can whether it will hold up. what are th

get out from under the sarbanes-oxley provisions. >> let's not mistake it for what we need to do for a serious, comprehensive jobs bill for our country. martha: we'll talk to congressman aaron shock,. he will weigh in on the jobs bill debate. and what nancy pelosi thought about that coming up. gregg: well, presidential candidate mitt romney hitting president obama on jobs. the gop frontrunner say the president's policies are to blame for america's stubbornly high unemployment. >> he was going to cut the budget deficit in half. he doubled it. when he became president he asked us to borrow $787 billion. he said if we got the money keep unemployment below 8%. has not below 8% since. has a lot of things to say but hasn't delivered. middle income families would get help with a tax cut. have you seen that yet? i'm afraid not? gregg: romney campaigning today in mississippi and alabama just ahead of those state's pro primaries on tuesday. many gop leaders encouraging romney to engauge the president more head on. martha: remember fox news of course is your election headquarters. head to the w