Taxpayer and Gas Price Relief Act of 2011

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 572 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of this rule and obviously the underlying bill. House Resolution 572 provides a structured rule for H.R. 3606, that Jumpstart Our Business Startups, or what we also call the JOBS Act. The bill was introduced on December 8, 2011, by my friend, a bright young man who is one of the

brand-new leaders of our conference, a freshman, the gentleman from Tennessee, Stephen Fincher, and was ordered reported by Chairman Bachus and the Committee on Financial Services on February 16, 2012, by a near-unanimous vote of 54 1.

Members on both sides of the aisle have had an opportunity and will have opportunities to submit perfecting ideas. Thank goodness the Rules Committee allows this sort of thing to happen now that Republicans are in charge. The structured rule before us allows for 17 amendments, Mr. Speaker: 13 from Democrats, 3 from Republicans, and one which is a bipartisan amendment, meaning that Republican and Democrat Members of this House have a chance to work together on legislation for jobs for our country.

The chairman of the Rules Committee, David Dreier, has once again allowed the House to work its will through this important legislation by allowing us to have a rule not only where Members of Congress can come and share their ideas with the Rules Committee but, once again, have them made in order so they can come down on the floor, express their ideas, work with colleagues to perfect the legislation and then to vote for the bill, because they were a part of it. Those are ideas that I think are good for this body. David Dreier, as chairman of the committee, deeply believes this is the way the floor should operate.

Today, we're going to consider a package of commonsense job-creating bills that stand out for a unique reason, and that unique reason is the President of the United States now supports what we're doing, also. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats have yet to give their blessing on this bill and the package that's included. So we're just going to have to do the best we can and then hope for the best. Maybe the Senate will decide they want to take action on bills that will not only better enable our country to have jobs and job creation, but also a chance to work for the best interests of the American people.

House Republicans are on the floor again today, as we have been doing now for a year and a few months, to persistently make the case about job creation, why jobs are important to our country, why the Congress should be all about trying to work with the free enterprise system, work with Members of Congress who see the big need for jobs, not only at home, but all across this country in every single State so that we can have job creation as a major goal of what this Congress and hopefully the President would be for. Over 30 bills that we've already passed through this body over the last year and a couple months await consideration by Senate Democrats. That means that this body, just like the bills we are going to handle today, we have been on the floor for a year talking about jobs, job creation, the way we can aid and abet the free enterprise system, investors, and opportunities back home. Those bills are waiting over in the Senate, and today we're simply going to add to that.

The big difference is the President has now said, You guys have got a good idea. The day the President agrees with House Republicans and House Democrats is a great day for our country. So, the good news out of Washington today is Stephen Fincher had a good idea the President agrees with, and we're going to do something about that.

Our economy has a credit problem, too, Mr. Speaker, not just a jobs problem. Companies are unable to receive the credit they need to grow their businesses, and as banks and other traditional credit providers face stricter Federal restrictions by the Obama administration, it decreases the ability for lending to take place, and companies that need lending and cash and capital available to them are looking for innovative funding mechanisms that will provide the liquidity necessary so they can keep their businesses current, so they can expand their business, so they can meet the needs of the marketplace. This administration continues to promote policies that slow economic growth and make it more difficult for businesses and, in particular, small business, to obtain capital and have a source of funding. Republicans believe that we must create an environment that changes that, that encourages investment in small business. Small business, as we know, is really the engine of our economy and really the national job creator. The underlying bill does just that.

The JOBS Act consists of numerous pro-growth provisions, and I would like to talk about those because it's important for us to remind our colleagues that a pro-growth bill or a pro-growth environment that our free enterprise system would be involved in encourages not just the creation of capital, but also the ability of that formation of capital to make jobs in America to come about as a result of that.

This bill from Congressman Fincher creates a new category of what's called emerging growth companies that will reduce costs for small companies to go public. Great idea.

There is legislation from our majority whip, Kevin McCarthy from California, that will allow small businesses to advertise for the purpose of soliciting capital from potential investors. In other words, this was not allowed by law. Small companies that have great ideas need the opportunity to advertise in the marketplace and have people see that there are good ideas. Kevin McCarthy is right.

A bill from Congressman McHenry from North Carolina would allow what is called crowdfunding for initial public offerings under $1 million. In other words, it opens up the ability to gather more capital to come in. And Congressman McHenry is right, we need to utilize market-based solutions, and we need to make it legal.

There are two bills from Congressman Schweikert from Arizona: one that would allow more businesses to go public, gathering investment and growth, and a second bill which raises the threshold number of shareholders required from mandatory Securities and Exchange Commission registration for all companies.

And finally, there is a bill by Congressman Quayle from Arizona which increases the threshold number of shareholders permitted to invest in community banks; in other words, bringing more investors to an important part of our economy, and that is called community banks, banks that exist for the purpose of trying to make our communities, local communities, stronger and better.

The banks and small businesses of the district which I represent, the 32nd Congressional District of Texas, which is primarily Dallas, Richardson, Addison, and Irving, Texas, consistently describe to me about how they have an inability to raise capital investment, not due to a lack of willing investors, but as a result of burdensome regulations that are placed on them by the Federal Government. Oftentimes we discuss the need for the SEC limit on individual investors, and we know that it restricts their ability to raise funds through community participation in local business creation. I am proud to tell them now that, as a result of this bill today and the legislation included, help is on the way.

These important changes not only provide businesses with the necessary ability to expand, but also they provide individuals with new mechanisms to invest and grow with their own personal assets in companies that they know best.

The rules adjusted in the underlying bill have proven restrictive to economic growth, so we've got to adjust these problems in the marketplace and come up with new and creative ideas. We must push these constructive proposals without political delay. This is why Members of this body, including, I believe, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), support this bill. The reason why we can work together is to make sure we push constructive ideas that are good for people back home.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation is still in crisis. We do not have enough jobs. We are in a dwindling marketplace because of the excessive number of rules and regulations that have been passed by prior Congresses. With unemployment persistently over 8 percent, we cannot continue the failed policies of government spending, rules, and regulations, and the inability to pass laws that help job creation to overcome these problems. The underlying bill will do exactly that. It will help foster not only an environment, but provide the underpinning through law that will allow the private sector to more fully participate.

The future success of our economy rests in the hands of small, private business, not the Federal Government. What we are doing today is unleashing their potential so that they can focus on the things that they do best. This is part of having a Republican majority: pro business, pro economic development for jobs, the formation of capital, and the ability for American entrepreneurship to flourish. The result is going to be an economic environment that promotes growth and generates more revenue for the Federal Government.

I am delighted not only to be on the floor once again talking about economic growth, but once again trying to act as a soundpiece for the American people who are asking the United States Congress to please understand the plight that we are in, to please help work on what will help the free enterprise system job creation.

So today as we are on the floor, we offer a hearty reminder to the American people that there are people who get what this is about. That's partially why this Republican majority has been and will continue to be successful. We will push for reform, a pro-growth environment, and the opportunity to help people back home, instead of with a handout, to give them the ability to do things on their own.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this fair rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I remind the gentleman that the Republican minority leader, Mr. McConnell, has been asking for some 30 jobs bills to at least go through committee or to be on the floor, and I do not think that a jobs bill would be a problem for a Republican to object to.

So I would once again advise the gentleman that I think my statement was correct. The Senate minority leader has asked for every single one of these 30 bills that have been passed by the House to be debated and voted on, and Republicans have pledged their support of all 30.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the gentleman, my friend, Mr. Polis, for not only coming to our defense and aid in this but also aiming for things that people all across this country need, and it's called action by Congress for jobs.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I'd like to yield 4 minutes to the young gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Well, I'm not seeking recognition, but I would say that the gentleman from Arizona has a good bill, and I encourage you to read it.

Mr. Speaker, just so you know, the gentleman is correct, and I appreciate his viewpoint of this.

This is a copy of Mr. Quayle's bill right here. It's about one-third of a page long. It's a good idea that says we're going to increase the number of people who can invest in a community bank. I hope that should not require us to have to go back and do too much thinking about how great this would be. We're trying to perfect, instead of by just having an amendment, to allow all Members to take part in these things with their good ideas.

So I do take that what the gentleman said is correct, but good ideas are part of this bill. That should be what we're about here on the floor, just as an amendment that may not have gone through.

I wish I could. I'm out of time. I've got a whole bunch of speakers. But I appreciate the gentleman. He'll have plenty of time.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from New York makes a good point about the President's jobs bill, except it picks winners and losers, and has hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases that will continue to kill the free enterprise system, along with the other administrative things that this President is doing to the free enterprise system. So this body will not, will not pass hundreds of billions of dollars of tax increases and then say we're trying to help people doing that.

The President, I'm sure, is entitled to his own beliefs. We're going to do the things which work, that empower the free enterprise system.

Speaking of working and empowering the free enterprise system, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert), who has brought great ideas to this bill and they are included in this.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a man who I believe is one of the clearest thinkers in this Congress. He is a person who studies well, applies logic, and comes out with a deduction for making things better for people who are not in this town, but rather people who are the real part of America.

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I thank the gentleman for asking.

We did have one person who we believe is attempting to get here, to run here; but I would at this time tell you he is not here. So I would encourage the gentleman to go ahead and close as he would choose, and I would then do the same.

I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, to hear the gentleman's strong voice, not only as an entrepreneur before he came to Congress, but in Mr. Polis' dustup as he speaks in the Rules Committee in which he talks about America wanting to have a bright future, he is the father of a new young son, and he looks forward to the day that his son will have a bright future in this country. I appreciate his words today. He is also correct that we do not create jobs in this town, as it is the free enterprise system that does that. Yet with that comes an equal recognition that this town gets in the way of jobs and job creation.

Our taxes are preparing to be raised. The President, the Democratic Party are all about raising taxes on entrepreneurs, and people who get up and go to work every day, and small business, and taking away a Tax Code that benefits women, in particular married women, with the marriage penalty, as well as job creation through incentives that might deal with depreciation. All of these things are part of a pro-growth jobs package, and unfortunately, this House is not together on that. This House is having to, as the gentleman Mr. Pence said, make incremental progress as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, this body is big enough to be able to recognize that this country is in trouble. I don't care if you live in Orlando, Florida, or in Pensacola, Florida, or whether you live in Dallas, Texas, or whether you live in California. The needs of this great Nation are about job creation and about ensuring in a competitive marketplace that we keep jobs, that we have ample credit that's available, that we have new ideas like we're handling today in this bill, but that we also go to some old ideas, one of which is, when you tax companies or when you tax something, you get less of it.

What the President of the United States and the Democratic Party want to do is to tax America--the free enterprise system--to pick winners and losers and then try to call that ``new revenue'' to this country when, in fact, all it does is offset it with higher unemployment.

We need a pro-growth economy. We need a pro-growth agenda from the United States Congress. It's not just the House but the Senate, also. We need the President of the United States to understand that his temptation to talk about economic growth should be about job creation, not just about picking winners and losers. We need someone who will bring this country together, not attack our free enterprise system, not stand up in front of people and say that we can work together but then not actually become responsible enough to become engaged in legislation that will pass so that we can make this country stronger.

The Republican Party is here today, leading this bill on the floor. We've got

a rule which allows for 17 amendments--13 from Democrats, 3 from Republicans, 1 bipartisan. Once again, our Speaker, John Boehner, and the gentleman from California, David Dreier, who is the chairman of the Rules Committee, are intensely interested in having this House work in a bipartisan fashion, but making progress for the American people. The American people expect us and want us to do better. Today is a chance to work together, pass a bill, put it across the aisle to the Senate, and ask them to please join us in making life better for Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues support this rule. It's a great rule. It does the right thing. The underlying legislation is wonderful, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked long and hard on a number of these bills.

In my remarks today, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the good, the bad, and the ugly: the good that these bills can do to free up our capital markets, but the bad and the ugly of issues that are more substantial to job creation and the fiscal integrity of our country, which this Congress continues to ignore.

First, to respond to my colleague from Texas who several times blamed one particular party in the Senate for advancing these bills, I would just like to remind my colleague that many of these bills are sponsored by Democrats in the Senate. It's not Democrats or Republicans in the Senate; it is the Senate that needs to pass this. And as we know, the Senate requires 60 votes. So I would hope that the gentleman from Texas would amend his future remarks and call upon the Senate to pass the JOBS Act rather than just the Democrats in the Senate, of course recognizing that Republican votes are needed to reach the necessary 60 votes to advance any legislation.

I am happy to yield.

Will the gentleman amend his remarks?

Reclaiming my time, again, just as many of them are sponsored by Democrats as by Republicans. It will take votes from both sides to get to 60 votes. I think they can do that. And many of these bills before the House have had 400 votes, 90 percent of this body. Hopefully, they will command similarly large supermajorities in the Senate, comprised of both Democrats, many of whom sponsored these bills, and Republicans, who may be opposed to certain elements but hopefully, in the name of moving the country forward, will pass this JOBS Act.

Here's what this bill will do.

First of all, it's not a JOBS Act, per se. The JOBS name is an acronym. It actually is called Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, or JOBSA, but I guess JOBS sounds better. But what it really affects is capital markets. It is really a capital market bill. It is a good bill. It has several components that have already passed the House. My colleague from Texas outlined several of them. I want to explain why they are so important.

First and foremost, it makes it easier for many small companies to go public. It rolls back some of the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations that were put in place in 2002 for small and medium-cap companies. Again, when you're looking at the compliance cost of Sarbanes-Oxley, they don't scale with the business. So it's de minimis for a $10 billion business, but it's substantial and, in fact, a deterrent to accessing the capital markets for a $100 million or a $300 million business. So this, in fact, rolls them back in a very thoughtful way.

And I would further call for reexamination, of course, of the requirements for businesses of all sizes, but this will allow many small and mid-cap businesses to access the public capital markets.

In addition, it allows people to invest in start-ups, a concept that's called crowdfunding, which is very exciting. Of course, heretofore, essentially, investing in start-ups has been restricted to what are called accredited investors. Now, an accredited investor is not just some investor that goes through some process of getting accredited; it's basically somebody who's wealthy. They have to be worth several million dollars; and then, all of a sudden, they're accredited.

Now, we all know that some wealthy people are poor investors and some are good investors. One's wealth has nothing to do with how accredited or how good an investor one is. And families who are worth $100,000 or families that are worth $300,000 are perfectly within their rights under current law to go to Las Vegas or Atlantic City and bet their entire lifesavings on one roll of the dice; and yet they're not allowed, under current law, to invest in start-ups.

So, we, with this bill, would allow families of all means to invest in start-up companies, some of which will work out and some of which will not. American families will enter this being aware of the risks. But, again, it is their money, they earned it, they've paid taxes on it, and they should be able to invest it and/or gamble it as they see fit.

Another thing we do under this bill is increase the number of shareholders that is required for mandatory registration with the FCC from 500 to 1,000. This is very important because many companies use stock options, which is a good practice. It gets the employees to own part of the company, to own part of the fruits of their labor, and to have some of the upside on the equity. But companies have effectively been limited on this because once they have 500 shareholders, they're forced to file as public. So we're allowing them to stay private longer, as the need fits them, and not have to scale back on their option policy with their employees. Inevitably, some of those options get exercised, and employees become outright owners over time. This would prevent them from being forced into a backdoor IPO.

In addition, we, again, allow community banks to raise additional capital. We remove some of the requirements around that. Community banks are important lenders in our community; and that's an important step, as well, towards allowing capital to flow more freely.

So, in sum, the several bills, most of which have already passed this House, that we are packaging in the JOBS Act, this act that we're doing here today, are good bills that will free up the capital markets. And, yes, in the medium and long term, there will likely be some jobs created, because where will that capital go? It will flow to businesses that will encourage job growth. This is not something that happens overnight, but this is something that happens as a fruit of the investment. Some of these start-ups that are funded through crowdfunding might, in fact, be employers of 1,000 people in 5 years or 10 years. And that's what's so exciting about the potential of these mechanisms to create value in the economy.

But what are we not doing? And what would be a real jobs bill? In my opinion, there's really several things that are holding back our private sector recovery. First and foremost is our budget deficit and the questions about the

fiscal integrity of this country. This Congress continues to avoid taking action on a default scenario under which debt as a percentage of GDP would rise from about 70 percent where it is now to about 200 percent of our GDP by 2040, a far worse situation than many of the fiscally beleaguered nations in Europe that are currently undertaking bailouts.

This is widely known on both sides of the aisle, and, in fact, the solution is widely known, as well. There are several that have been presented. There's a bipartisan group that emerged from the Senate, including Democrats and Republicans, that proposed a plan to reduce the deficit as a percentage of GDP down to 1.9 percent by 2021. There's been a similar effort on behalf of the Bowles-Simpson Commission, again, to rein in fiscal spending so that debt as a percentage of GDP would be 35 percent instead of 200 percent by 2040.

This Congress has not advanced either and, in fact, quite to the contrary, has passed an operational budget that only serves to continue these deficits through the next 10 years. Again, giving fiscal certainty around the integrity of our Nation would do a lot more to free up capital and improve the flow of capital and credit markets and create jobs than these relatively minor, but still important, bills that we're considering here today.

The other reform that would create a lot more jobs in this bill, and I think would better be called a Jobs Act, if they could come up with a fancy acronym for it, is business tax reform.

I'd like to submit to the Record a recent report from the White House and the Department of the Treasury on a framework for business tax reform.

Introduction

America's system of business taxation is in need of reform.

The United States has a relatively narrow corporate tax base

compared to other countries--a tax base reduced by loopholes,

tax expenditures, and tax planning. This is combined with a

statutory corporate tax rate that will soon be the highest

among advanced countries. As a result of this combination of

a relatively narrow tax base and a high statutory tax rate,

the U.S. tax system is uncompetitive and inefficient. The

system distorts choices such as where to produce, what to

invest in, how to finance a business, and what business form

to use. And it does too little to encourage job creation and

investment in the United States while allowing firms to

benefit from incentives to locate production and shift

profits overseas. The system is also too complicated--

especially for America's small businesses.

For these reasons, the President is committed to reform

that will support the competitiveness of American

businesses--large and small--and increase incentives to

invest and hire in the United States by lowering rates,

cutting tax expenditures, and reducing complexity; while

being fiscally responsible.

This report presents the President's Framework for business

tax reform. In laying out this Framework, the President

recognizes that tax reform will take time, require work on a

bipartisan basis, and benefit from additional feedback from

stakeholders and experts. To start that process, this report

outlines what the President believes should be five key

elements of business tax reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), an author of key provisions of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we'll offer an amendment to the rule to provide that, immediately after the House adopts this rule, it will bring up Mr. Bishop's bill, H.R. 1748, the Taxpayer and Gas Price Relief Act and that would simply do it, in addition to this bill, with broad bipartisan support. I know there is also broad bipartisan concern about gas prices, a very substantial issue that many on my side of the aisle, Mr. Bishop included, would like to do something about so that American consumers have more of their money to take home.

So to talk about his proposal, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Texas has any remaining speakers.

Thank you.

I will certainly extend the courtesy to the gentleman. If the gentleman in his closing wants to yield some time to his speaker, I will not object to that.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill here today is a good bill, an important bill. It's not a job solution for our country. It's not a jobs bill. In fact, I think the frustration of some is that to a certain extent it represents the spinning of the wheels that has typified this Congress in that most of these bills have actually already passed this House. That being said, if packaging them together and passing them again and trying to put pressure on the Senate to pass it is a constructive step towards making them law, then let's do it. I think a strong bipartisan vote of support will help do that. President Obama said he will sign this bill.

I call upon my colleagues of both sides of the aisle to support these bills. These bills help free up our capital markets in positive and constructive ways by allowing small investors the same opportunities as large investors, allowing companies a little bit more flexibility on remaining private over who their investors are, allowing small and mid- cap companies easier access to public marketplaces. This in turn makes it easier for venture capitalists and angel funders to invest in start- up companies, knowing that there's a better prospect of an exit should they succeed at smaller mid-cap stages.

We all know there's a number of contributing factors to the decrease in public offerings that have occurred over the last 10 years, a trend that I think is beginning to reverse. One of those aspects--certainly not the only aspect--is the excess regulation that we abolish through this act. Other things include simply the appetite of the capital markets for public offerings at any given time and other legal and administrative risks that are not dealt with in this bill that perhaps call for additional legislation.

This is not by any stretch of the imagination a recovery or a jobs bill, but these are very constructive steps that, again, cycling our wheels, yes, we've already passed. We are passing two new ones as well. Let's package them together; let's put pressure on the Senate to send them to President Obama's desk where he has said he will sign these bills.

But let us not, in our effort to continue to push these important pieces of legislation for capital formation, forget that our country faces even more important critical risks before us. We need to get serious about growing our economy, and we need to work hard in a bipartisan basis to implement real tax reform legislation, tax reform that would create a more competitive Tax Code, allowing companies to reinvest in their growth rather than taking their money in an arbitrary way or encouraging them to distort the economic reality and the allocation of resources by having certain tax preferences for industries that may be in or out of favor of government officials. Let's allow companies to invest in their own growth and encourage private sector job creation and have real corporate tax reform as the President has proposed and the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Camp, has proposed and many on both sides of the aisle have proposed.

I call upon our House to move forward a bill that will fundamentally make American businesses more competitive and that, Mr. Speaker, we can call a jobs act.

What else can we call a jobs act? We can call a jobs act doing something about our national deficit, the fact that the current fiscal integrity of our Nation is at stake if we do not take action. Over the next 10 to 15 years, yes, our Nation faces an immense financial crisis.

We need a balanced approach, a big, bold and balanced approach, as has been outlined by both the Gang of Six and the Bowles-Simpson Commission. There are a number of people on both sides of the aisle who have been calling for real deficit reduction, and yet this House has not reduced the deficit and has continued to pass and operate, in fact, under a budget that simply continues these record deficits for the next 10 years.

Providing that certainty around the fiscal integrity of our country-- to allow for long-term borrowing, to ensure that businesses have access to capital and predictability over time--will, again, do more to create jobs and grow our economy than will freeing up the capital markets around a few key areas that these bills accomplish.

So, yes, these bills are an important step in the right direction, including the only one truly new bill before us--the others have already been passed by this House. This is a good package, a good package which is a first start to rebuilding our economy. But even after they're enacted, there is nothing that instantaneously happens. They have to be implemented, and credited investors have to start buying private securities and start-ups. It will be several years before this can translate into actual job growth, which it will, and produce meaningful results. Again, corporate tax reform and showing some interest among this body in actually balancing our budget deficit would send an indication now to the marketplace that would immediately lead to job growth.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the previous question into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and to defeat the previous question.

These are important bills, and I strongly support the underlying bill. I encourage its passage, and again encourage my colleagues to be fully aware that, by passing this bill, we are not creating a single job. Yes, by pressuring the Senate and by getting the bill to Obama's desk, it can eventually lead to the enhancement of our capital markets and some job creation, but this doesn't get us off the hook.

Passing this bill and not balancing the budget deficit, as this Congress is currently doing, as well as passing this bill and not reforming our Tax Code by making it more in line with the international standard, is not a recipe for American competitiveness or jobs. In fact, this bill alone, if it means the absence of balancing our budget and the absence of making our Tax Code competitive, is just an anti- jobs bill. You can't bail out a sinking ship. This country needs fundamental change. We need to balance our budget deficit. We need corporate tax reform. We need individual tax reform.

I call upon my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take those items up. Yes, it is a small positive measure to help free up capital flow, particularly for start-ups and small- and mid-cap companies. Let's pass this jobs bill now. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, this is a perfectly nice bill, but things are sometimes judged in comparison. It is being hailed as a bigger bill than it is, but that's what happens when you grade on a curve as we grade on a curve.

One of the great philosophers of the 20th century was a man named Henny Youngman. One of his philosophical bits of wisdom was expressed in the question and answer:

How's your wife?

Compared to what?

Well, compared to the output of this House so far, this is a very, very, very major bill. Compared to our economy in general, it's a good bill, but of no immediate significance in terms of jobs, and useful for the future. But as I said, I think it's important just getting pumped up a little bit so we can avoid here, as a collective body, the charge that we haven't done anything.

I do have one criticism of the rule, and I had expressed this hope yesterday and I was frustrated. A number of amendments were made in order, and I appreciate that, but every single amendment is to be debated for only 10 minutes. That's unworthy of a deliberative body. There are important questions here that are involved in these issues. And if you think these bills are important, then the amendments to them are important.

Now, that's within the context of support. In most cases, we are talking about people who support the concept but have some differences about what should be there. But to say that every amendment gets debated for only 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side, is to denigrate the deliberative function to a point which is of great concern to me. It is not as if we've been so busy that we couldn't carve out time for 20 minutes or even a half hour of debate. So I regret the dumbing down of the House, which is represented by saying that no issue will be debated for more than 10 minutes.

Then I only have one other question of a procedural sort as the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee. Most of these bills have been through the committee. There were six bills; four have even passed the House. Two bills, I was told, were from the committee. But one of the bills, H.R. 4088, it's got a new sponsor, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle), and we've never seen that in our committee. I've checked. That bill was introduced February 24 or something. It's never had a hearing. It's never been through committee. So why are we getting a bill on the floor now that has never been seen in our committee?

I would yield to the gentleman from the Rules Committee.

Well, I have read the bill. But to be told that we're going to, in a party that says they're devoted to regular order, bring out a bill--H.R. 4088 has had no committee consideration whatsoever; the other bills have, the other five. But it's never been brought up in a hearing; it's never been in subcommittee; it's never been in committee. The notion that it's a good bill and therefore should be immune from any committee process is very discouraging.

This is a bill that's only been in existence for a couple of weeks. The gentleman says, well, it's a good bill; read it. Well, then I guess we don't need committees. We don't need to do anything. If it's a good bill, you read it. But the process is supposed to be one where these things go through some vetting. So I am disappointed that we have a rule that brings a bill to the floor that has literally had no committee consideration whatsoever--brand-new bill, apparently, because it's got a brand-new sponsor. We've seen nothing like this. There have been some other bills that we've had, but I've seen no bill from the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle). I've seen no bill like H.R. 4088 that hasn't had a hearing, that hasn't been to committee.

At the same time, the Rules Committee thinks that we can take all these interesting questions--should there or shouldn't there be an examination, say, on pay? Is the billion number right?--and debate them all in only 10 minutes, 5 minutes on each side. That hardly serves the deliberative process.

I'd say that some Members think the bills may have more impact than I do. I hope I'm wrong and they have it. But if you really believe the bills are this important, why then is the debate only for 10 minutes on every single amendment, on the size, on the reporting requirements?

We have amendments that have been requested by the North American Securities Administrators, the State regulators; 5 minutes on the side. That is hardly a mark of people who take the deliberative process in the U.S. House of Representatives very seriously.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado.

Will the gentleman yield?

I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Sessions, for his leadership on the Rules Committee and otherwise in this House. I also want to commend Mr. Fincher from Tennessee for offering this legislation. It's a very important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support and speak in favor of the JOBS Act. What this legislation does is address a key concern that I hear from my constituents in western North Carolina.

We know that entrepreneurship here in the United States is at a 17- year low. We also realize that the rest of the world has caught up to us in terms of their capital markets and business formation. We also know that small businesses create the majority of new jobs in the United States. So it's very important for us, in light of the new regulatory changes that have happened in the last couple of years here in Washington--the advent of Dodd-Frank that increases the cost of lending and makes it less available for small businesses, the CARD Act that makes credit cards less available to the average person who tries to start their business, like my father did, on his credit card. We also realize that the regulatory changes, the more, higher red tape that we have here in Washington makes it

more expensive to do business here in the United States.

These are major concerns. These are major concerns for my constituents in western North Carolina.

I want to commend Mr. Fincher for offering the JOBS Act. We've got some very important pieces of information and policy changes in this bill.

If you look at the 1990s, we had 530 IPOs, on average, every year. We had fewer than 65 in the year 2009. We realize that going public is not the avenue for every business, though the dream of many small business folks. So an important component of the JOBS Act is a piece of legislation we passed that I authored here in the House, with the help of my colleague from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the crowdfunding act, which allows small businesses to access the capital markets to sell equity, rather than ask for debt, sell equity in their great start-up or new idea.

Crowdfunding takes the best of microfinance and crowdsourcing and uses the power of the Internet for small businesses to have offerings in their company. Now, it could be used for a tech company, certainly, to raise up to $2 million, but it could be used for a coffee shop in Hickory or in Asheville in western North Carolina to raise $50,000 and sell equity in their business.

These regulatory changes are very important. We have regulations and laws on the books--the 1933 Securities Act, the 1934 Securities and Exchange Act--that really were the reaction to the problems and challenges of their day.

They put in restrictions in terms of advertising about your security. Well, that was a problem when the telephone was the new technology of the day. But we have the power of the Internet, and people are more informed today than they were 100 years ago about investing. So we're changing these regulatory structures so that small businesses can get the capital they need to grow and expand. That's what this is all about.

It doesn't fix every problem that we face today, but this is a bipartisan bill. It's a good idea. The President has spoken in favor of many of the components of this legislation, and we hope, not to simply pass it out of the House on a bipartisan basis, but to ensure that we pass it through the Senate and the President signs it.

These are good ideas that can have an impact and help us grow and create jobs. It helps entrepreneurs. It helps small businesses. Those folks are the lifeblood of economic growth, and that's what we need to be focused on.

I urge the adoption of the rule, and ask my colleagues to vote for passage.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for his leadership on the Rules Committee.

I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill. It's a package of bills designed to encourage the growth of smaller companies and start-ups, and it contains six separate bills, four of which have already passed this body by overwhelming majorities.

I share the concerns of the ranking member, Mr. Frank, that these 17 amendments that were put in place, adequate time has not been given to fully debate them.

I do want to take issue with my good friend from North Carolina in his criticism of the CARD Act, saying that it has made it harder for Americans to receive cards. This bill that passed this body overwhelmingly, with Democratic leadership, I was proud to be the lead sponsor on it, working with all of my colleagues on the Democratic side. And what it did is it stopped unfair deceptive practices.

Money magazine called this bill the best friend a credit card holder ever had, and The Pugh Foundation came out with a report earlier this year saying that this Democratic bill alone saved consumers in our country $10 billion in 1 year. I would say that's an advantage for consumers, an excellent goal that was championed by our President and by the Democratic leadership.

I would like to take issue with this comprehensive jobs agenda. I do support it, but I think that we should be working on major job-creating opportunities, such as the transportation bill and the President's Jobs Act, and these two bills would create half a million jobs. Here we are repackaging a group of old bills that we've passed before, and it does not constitute a comprehensive jobs bill.

As I said, four of the six bills have already passed the House with major support on both sides of the aisle. And I'm disturbed that one bill was taken from my Democratic colleague, Jim Himes.

I would like to quote The Washington Post. The Washington Post said:

The JOBS Act is not new legislation but is instead a grab

bag of items that have already passed at the committee level

or on the House floor by wide bipartisan votes.

These previously-passed bills make some useful yet modest steps forward, but they are no substitute for a major job-creating highway bill or passage of the full American Jobs Act. These bills make modest changes for start-up companies, making it easier for them to raise capital through the Internet and the solicitation of accredited investors, and loosening certain filing and regulatory requirements for start-ups and small banks.

I would say the prime goal of the Democratic leadership is to reignite the American Dream by building the pillars of success for small businesses, our entrepreneurs, and by making our economy stronger. These bills before us do help in many ways, although they are not a comprehensive jobs package. It rightly gives smaller companies and start-ups greater flexibility to grow and flourish.

I urge the adoption of the rule and the underlying bills. I do want to mention the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, which creates a new exemption from registration for crowdfunding securities. It permits a company to raise up to $2 million a year, with investors permitted to invest the lesser of $10,000 or 10 percent of their income annually in such companies.

I was pleased to work with my colleague, Mr. McHenry, on this bill. It has a number of others that would reduce the cost of going public, and would aid in the capital formation for job creation in our country.

I do want to note that the President of the United States, his administration, is supporting these bills, and I urge passage of them.