Access to Capital for Job Creators Act

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

I would like to express my appreciation to the leadership of the House for expediting these two important bills and bringing them before the House of Representatives. I rise in support of the underlying bills, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act and Access to Capital for Job Creators Act.

Now, while I support the two bills before us, I do wish the rule was an open one. I will be voting against the rule. An open rule would allow the House to work its will in a true democratic process, allowing Members to come down to the floor and freely debate these bills. Unfortunately, in the Rules Committee, we were offered only a structured rule.

Now, both of these bills accomplish something very important in terms of opening up capital markets and helping startups work. Let me discuss briefly how this whole accredited investor concept works.

To be an accredited investor, you simply need to be worth $1 million or have income of $200,000 a year. Now, that's a very rarified strata of the American people.

What does that mean when you're an accredited investor? It means that you can participate in a private equity offering that doesn't need to go through the full SEC process which is cumbersome and costs a lot of money. So, in effect, many venture capital opportunities, funding opportunities for startup companies, are reserved for those who are only worth above a million dollars. They say the easiest way to make a million dollars is to already be worth a million dollars. In fact, people worth more than a million dollars have heretofore had a monopoly on participating in these kinds of opportunities.

Now, what can an average American family, let's say with a net worth of $50,000 or $100,000 do? Well, they can go to Las Vegas and they can bet it all on number 9. They can buy gold, which is being pushed by all these profit organizations, and I think we need a congressional investigation into that. Many of these organizations selling gold sell it for above market value by preying on unsuspecting people who are not accredited investors. They might be worth $50,000 or $100,000.

What you find, by the way, is that this whole concept of tying an accredited investor to net worth has its flaws. Just because somebody has several million dollars doesn't mean they're a sophisticated investor. Meanwhile, there could be somebody who's worth $10,000 who is very sophisticated. It's unfortunate that we have the whole system tied to that.

But what we see before us today are two important chinks in this armor. One is consistent with the current concept of accredited investor but at least opens it up beyond their personal networks, and the other one allows small investors to participate in a more meaningful way.

First, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, crowdfunding. What this means is it provides a new way that companies, startup companies, can raise a limited amount of money, $1 million a year, or $2 million if they have audited financial statements. Now, that's a sizable amount for a company to get off the ground and get started. Many tech companies that you hear of today started with that much money or less. Historically, how did they raise that money? They would go to a venture capitalist. They would go to a wealthy individual. We call that person an angel investor. They'd get a check for $500,000. The investors had to be worth more than a million dollars. Your average American might be worth--might only have $5,000 to invest or $1,000 to invest, was unable to, under law, participate in that offering.

What this does is it opens up an avenue that allows the individual investor to invest up to $10,000 in a startup company. Now, that's a risky investment. They could lose that $5,000. They could lose that $2,000. But you know what? They could go to Las Vegas and they could lose it a lot quicker with a lot less upside.

So this gives every American the opportunity to invest in startup companies, if one of their friends is starting one, if there is some concept they are excited about, and reap the rewards as well. In addition to feeling part of something special, some of these investments, the vast minority, could return 50:1, 100:1 and could help those people acquire wealth, and that's very, very exciting.

The Access to Capital for Job Creators Act also deals with a flaw in how private equity is raised. Currently, you have to know the right people to get into a private equity deal. In fact, a company that's offering private equity is not even allowed to, under SEC regulation, post a prospectus and information on their Web site in an open environment. What this bill does is it creates a safe harbor that allows them not to advertise it in the sense of loudly promoting it and trying to sell shares, but in a sense of simply providing it in a nonpassword-protected way on their Web site to allow people who aren't part of their personal network of elite friends to participate in that private equity offering as well.

The average median household net worth in this country is about $100,000. And previously, all of these investment opportunities have been reserved for people worth over a million dollars. Now, if somebody's family, an American family watching this, or one of my constituents is worth $100,000 or $150,000 or $50,000, it may not make all the sense in the world to invest $5,000 or $10,000 in one startup, but a cap of $10,000 is a reasonable amount. It's their money and their right to do that if that's what they want to do. These bills are consistent with that. And, more importantly, they provide a new financing mechanism for startups in this country. That way, a startup that has broad appeal and a broad network can go to 1,000 people that have $1,000 each rather than one wealthy investor for $1 million. That was previously nearly impossible under current law.

Mr. Speaker, I have here a Statement of Administration Policy, and I'm proud to say that this bill, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, has strong support from the administration: ``This bill will make it easier for entrepreneurs to raise capital and create jobs, and the administration looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to craft legislation that facilitates capital formation.''

I would like to applaud the leadership of the President of the United States in strongly supporting these endeavors. As a former small business owner, I know how important it is to invest in a company's future and how critical resources are for growth. The more avenues that we can provide for financing startup companies or allowing a mom-and- pop company to expand, the better it is for the growth of our economy.

More importantly, these two pieces of legislation before us demonstrate that Democrats and Republicans can work together. We can put aside our partisan differences, we can fast track a commonsense piece of legislation and work towards solutions to spur economic growth.

Now, to be clear, these two bills alone don't do enough to turn our economy around. These measures do little to address what the American people are asking us for, creating jobs in the short term and getting the economy moving. Will they have a positive impact in creating jobs and allowing for financing to flow to new startup operations? Yes, but they are not fundamentally game changers.

These bills will allow average Americans an opportunity to invest in early-stage companies. Now, many of these opportunities won't work out. American investors will lose their money. Other American investors will make money. But, again, it is a very American concept that it is your money to invest as you choose, and the best opportunities shouldn't be reserved for millionaires. We should make them widely available to all Americans.

Democrats on the Financial Services Committee have also been extremely

instrumental in improving these bills to protect business and investors. Democrats have added a critical provision requiring that issuers verify that an investor is actually eligible to purchase the offer in securities, and the change ensures there's a balance between the need to use restrictions on capital formation and protecting investors from fraud and making sure we don't get in the way of State regulation, as well.

There is a fine line; and there are, as I mentioned, some areas where sham investments are being aggressively promoted that are certainly contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Likewise, there are real opportunities that until this bill becomes law those who are worth under $1 million are ineligible from participating in, and as a companion those who might be worth more than $1 million but don't know the right people are unable to participate in private equity offerings. This bill remedies both of those restrictions and will help unleash capital flows to startup corporations. I'm proud to support both bills.

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management

and Budget,

Washington, DC, November 2, 2011.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2930--Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act

(Rep. McHenry, R-North Carolina, and 5 cosponsors)

The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 2930. In

the President's September 8th Address to a Joint Session of

Congress on jobs and the economy, he called for cutting away

the red tape that prevents many rapidly growing startup

companies from raising needed capital, including through a

``crowdfunding'' exemption from the requirement to register

public securities offerings with the Securities and Exchange

Commission. This proposal, which would enable greater

flexibility in soliciting relatively small equity

investments, grew out of the President's Startup America

initiative and has been endorsed by the President's Council

on Jobs and Competitiveness. H.R. 2930 is broadly consistent

with the President's proposal. This bill will make it easier

for entrepreneurs to raise capital and create jobs. The

Administration looks forward to continuing to work with the

Congress to craft legislation that facilitates capital

formation and job growth and provides appropriate investor

protections.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague on the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Very briefly, I yield myself 1 minute to respond before I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

To be clear, these bills have the potential to create jobs, but there will also be many investors that lose money as a result of these bills. Again, it's their money to lose. These bills are consistent with that. And obviously these bills, in addition to causing job growth in companies, will also cause misery to some people. But it is their money to lose, and it's probably better that they bet it on some startup than they invest it in gold or they take it to Vegas. So at least there's an opportunity to create jobs. Even if the company doesn't go anywhere, that's a job for a year. And it limits the loss to 10 percent of their income. So if somebody makes $80,000, they can only lose $8,000 a year under this. Hopefully that won't put them out of house and home. And it gives them the same opportunities to invest in startup companies that millionaires have had for years. It's a very egalitarian measure.

It is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, again I express appreciation to both majority and minority leaders for expedited action in trying to get to the President's desk these two important measures.

With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Critz).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

I thank the gentleman. I believe we are on our last speaker.

I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

I will inform the gentleman from Texas that one additional speaker has emerged.

I would be honored to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

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

The bills before us do something for people of all economic classes in the country--they help working families and the poor; they're good for the middle class; and they're good for millionaires. Let me talk about each group and how it helps.

First, millionaires. It gives millionaires more ways to lose their money. Isn't that exciting?

Previously, again, you not only had to be a millionaire, but you had to be a millionaire with the right connections to be networked to a company that's doing a private equity offering. Otherwise, you weren't allowed to find out about it. This will put all millionaires on an equal footing and will give them the opportunity to examine prospectuses on company sites, have them presented to them under the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act, allow them to squander their money on startups, and to, of course, occasionally reap a reward as they hope to do.

Again, this money that's invested will then create jobs. It will help fund the companies and get them off the ground, giving millionaires many more ways to lose their money through investing in risky startup companies.

What does this do for the middle class? Again, it gives the middle class more ways to risk their money and lose their money as well.

Previously, with a middle class family, the average net worth in this country was about $100,000. They were unable to invest in a startup company. They were not accredited investors. They couldn't lose their money that way. They could go to Las Vegas. They could bet it all on number six. They could lose it all there. They could respond to a full- page ad in a paper and buy gold with all their money. That doesn't create any jobs. But no. They couldn't invest it in their neighbor's startup company. This bill remedies that.

It limits their losses, and allows them to invest 10 percent of their income. If they make $80,000 a year, they can invest $8,000 in a risky startup company. Again, nine out of 10 of these are going to go out of business--they'll lose their money--and maybe one out of 10 will make a lot of money; but this allows middle class families the same opportunities that millionaires have always had to lose their money.

What does it do for working families and the American poor? Access to capital.

What if you have an idea? What if you don't have any net worth, but you have a great idea? You need to raise $100,000, $300,000--the proverbial ``better mousetrap.'' Do you know what? You might not know any fancy venture capitalists, and you might not know a lot of people with money. But do you know what this bill allows you to do? It allows you to put that idea up on the Internet and raise money from small investors across the country--legally. There is no legal way to do that until this bill passes. There is no legal way for somebody without access to capital to raise capital in small tranches without incurring SEC oversight and having to hire lots of lawyers.

This effectively allows working American families to raise money for their ideas by crowdsourcing, or raising money over the Internet, from that newly enfranchised middle class that now has the ability to lose their money

in new ways and from the millionaires, who have always been able to lose their money but only if they knew the right people. So these bills allow new avenues for growth capital for startup companies.

Again, to be clear, most of these companies aren't going to work out. That's the nature of capitalism. Most of them are going to go out of business. They might employ three people for a year, and 2 years down the road, they'll be a footnote. But do you know what? Some of them are going to work out. We could see the next Google, the next Yahoo!, the next Microsoft. Many of these companies started as garage companies, funded by proverbial friends and family. The next great American success story can be funded by crowdsourcing. It can have thousands of investors from middle class families across the country, earning millions of dollars on their investments and limiting their losses to 10 percent of their incomes.

I am proud to support these two bills and am appreciative of the majority and minority staffs for expediting their passage and improving them in committee and through the amendment process. It's time we get back to work for the American people.

I again call on the Speaker and my Republican colleagues to put aside partisanship and give us more bills like these and more bills that can contribute to robust job growth and to do something for all American families regardless of their economic worth.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the previous question; and I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the aforementioned amendment to the rule in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Again, I would like to point out that I will be opposing the previous question on the underlying issue. I don't necessarily agree with what some of my colleagues have said with regard to China, and I voted consistently with that in the last Congress and have in this Congress; but I do believe that the House should be able to work its will on this important matter to the American people and with regard to international relations.

There are bigger fish to fry than giving millionaires more ways to lose their money, than giving middle class families more ways to lose money and giving working families access to more capital; but these are important steps forward for capitalism, for capital growth and capital formation, and to create the next generation of great American companies that will lift us from this recession and carry forward the torch of American progress across the world.

I am honored to support both underlying bills and hope that they move to immediate passage in the Senate as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 453 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), a brand-new father who today presents himself on the floor as we work together, 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 have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 453 provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 2930 and H.R. 2940. This rule allows for all seven amendments submitted to the Rules Committee by Democrats and Republicans to be made in order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and the underlying bills. H.R. 2930, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act, was introduced on September 14, 2011, by my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Pat McHenry, and was reported by the Committee on Financial Services by a voice vote last week. The second bill, H.R. 2940, the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act, was introduced by the Republican majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), and also passed the Committee on Financial Services by a voice vote last week.

Both pieces of legislation have been through regular order. Members from both sides of the aisle have had opportunities to submit perfecting ideas, and those amendments have been carefully considered. Every amendment that was submitted to the Rules Committee was made in order and will be given full and fair consideration today. The chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), has once again allowed the House to work its will through an inclusive legislative process.

On December 10, 2009, I stood on the floor, and I argued then against the rule for consideration of the bill known as the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. It should be noted that I authored two proposals amongst many Republican and Democratic amendments that were all shut out that day. Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi chose to advance the Dodd-Frank bill without any open process consideration. The result of that legislation has caused great concern in financial markets not just here in the United States, but it has caused financial concern around the world.

Today the Republican House is changing that course in consideration of bills from the Financial Services Committee. Today we are looking at a targeted removal of outdated regulations simply to encourage market access for millions of small businesses and to encourage not only investment but also jobs in America.

For those who are listening to this, you could consider this a jobs creation bill. So I would advance this cause down the street to the White House to encourage the President to know that this is yet another in a line of job-creating, job-saving, jobs-in-America bills that the U.S. House of Representatives is once again considering, and today, on a bipartisan basis, with every single amendment that was submitted to the Rules Committee through an open process on the floor of the House of Representatives, ready for us to move this bill and vote on that today.

Mr. Speaker, our economy has a revenue problem. The administration continues to promote policies that slow economic growth. Republicans believe we must create an environment that encourages investment in small business, really the engine of our national job creators. This underlying bill will do just that. H.R. 2930 would remove restrictions on crowdfunding, allowing companies to pool small investors so that small businesses and entrepreneurs can raise capital equity. Outdated SEC regulations do not allow business owners in search of investments to solicit or to advertise. This legislation is needed and it's being presented on a bipartisan agreement basis.

Yesterday, I met with community bankers from Texas--Scott Heitkamp, the president of Value Bank; John Jay, the president of Roscoe State Bank; and Milton McGee, with the Independent Bankers of Texas, among others, who described to me their inability to raise capital investment, not due to a lack of willing investors, but as a result of burdensome regulations which inhibit or do not allow this. They informed me that the SEC limit on individual investors restricts their ability to raise funds through community participation and local business creation. I was proud to tell them and I will tell them again today, I heard your story and we are here on the floor doing something about that that will be of immediate benefit and health to jobs and job creation in America today on the floor of the House of Representatives in a bipartisan agreement fashion.

H.R. 2940 allows for general solicitation and advertising which would attract private investment. Small, privately held companies will no longer be forced to have an existing relationship with potential investors. However, the legislation requires the SEC to ensure that investors are accredited.

As Congressman Jared Polis from Colorado, the lead today from the Rules Committee on behalf of the minority, indicated at the Rules Committee meeting yesterday that ``crowdsourcing'' investment through new advertising mediums, such as social media, would allow for access to new pools of available capital. These are exactly the kinds of ideas that are being brought today to the floor for the creation of investment dollars to help jobs in America and to make sure that we are prepared for our future.

Our Nation is in crisis. We cannot wait. And with an unemployment population of over 14 million people, we cannot continue the failed policies of government spending which have brought us to this point. Investment capital for small business continues to sit on the sidelines because of the uncertainty created by burdensome regulations and outdated rules. The underlying bills will foster job creation by simply allowing the private sector to participate in this endeavor.

The future success of our economy rests in the hands of private small business, not government. Unleashing their potential is the sole focus of this Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. The result is an economic environment that promotes growth and generates revenue as well as the creation of jobs in America.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this fair rule that allows consideration of all requested amendments and to vote for the underlying bills.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

At this time, I would like to extend to the gentleman from California 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), chairman of the Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity Subcommittee.

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

We're here talking about capital formation. We're here talking about entrepreneurial spirit, catching up with ideas to go to make job creation, and then for the jobs to be here in America.

That's what this bill is about today. It is about a bipartisan attempt, Republicans and Democrats working together, through regular order, to the Rules Committee, all seven amendments--Republicans and Democrats--that were submitted coming to the floor today, and us working these few hours, a chance for, I think, not only Members of Congress to effectively present their ideas and do the will of the people, but for us, perhaps more importantly, to work together to find common ground on important issues that will aid and help Americans have sounder financial footing. That's what this bill's about today.

I know there are other bills that people want to debate and want to bring to the floor. I felt that way for 4 years when the other side was, in fact, in control. But job creation through capital investment, through the formation, is what this bill's about.

I'm very proud of what we're doing here on the floor today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Regarding what is on the floor today, it is important that we recognize it is a continuing trend for job growth, job creation on not just a net basis, but on a positive basis without the loss of jobs. The Federal Government creates an average of 4,000 final rules and regulations each year, and that is what inhibits job growth. That's what the prior two Congresses have been about--massive rules and regulations, not the empowerment of the free enterprise system.

We need to remember that what we are here for is to work in the best interest of making a future brighter and better for those who are with us today and those who are behind us for their future. And that's why job creation, investment, and capital formation is important.

I reserve the balance of my time

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the gentleman from Colorado that I have no additional speakers other than myself, and I reserve the balance of my time to close.

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

Congress has an opportunity today to unleash investors in American business for the benefit of capital formation in America for American companies and jobs.

Additionally, we have an opportunity because we have worked so well together. There is joint agreement to ensure the safety and soundness of financial institutions in the United States with this legislation. Reforms to company-investor relations are long overdue, long overdue that would reform the industry to make them better, stronger--to add jobs, may I add.

Congress should be doing everything we can do to help economic growth and development, to jump-start the free enterprise system and put Americans back to work. That happens through capital formation. Growing our economy and slowing Federal spending will be the best way to get this government back and the economy back on track and getting out of the rising debt and deficit that is facing this great Nation.

The underlying bills provide necessary steps today for doing just that.

So I applaud my colleagues, Mr. McHenry and Mr. McCarthy, for introducing the bills that we're discussing here today. In particular, I'm proud of my committee, the committee I've served on for 14 years, the Rules Committee, under the leadership of the gentleman from California, Dave Dreier, for making sure that this bill--the power for investment, capital formation, jobs--also included ideas, ideas from both sides of the aisle, which equally, if submitted, were given not only consideration but the green light to come to the floor today to make sure that what we did, we did together; to make sure that we speak with a voice that's very powerful about the need for us to ensure that America's greatest days lie in our future through the free enterprise system.

I'm proud of what we have done here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it's a rare day when members of the Rules Committee from opposing parties have a chance to do so well with each other on the floor.

Once again, I'd like to congratulate the gentleman from Colorado on being a new father. We celebrated this with the pictures at the Rules Committee just yesterday.

I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

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

I want to begin by saying to the very distinguished vice chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, the gentleman from Dallas, that I appreciate his energy and effort on the Rules Committee. And I want to say that I think that he's very clearly made the case that we have, through this entire Congress, been focusing on the priority that the American people want us to focus on, and that is job creation and economic growth.

Now, it's a very specious claim that has been made by many that somehow this institution has failed to address the issue of job creation and economic growth. And I appreciate the good words and thoughtful comments on capital formation made by the minority manager of this rule on the floor. My friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis), who has taken on, and throughout his life has been focused on, the idea of the entrepreneur, taking the entrepreneurial spirit and generating jobs, he understands what it takes. Capital formation is a critical part of that.

The two measures that are going to be made in order under this rule go a long way in this 21st century recognizing that for us to grow the economy and create jobs, we're going to need to ensure that decreasing the regulatory burden that undermines the ability for small businesses to have access to capital as they pursue innovative ideas is something that needs to be addressed. And that's exactly what we're going to be doing.

And I say it's a specious claim, Mr. Speaker, that many people have made that this institution is not taking action. For that reason, I hope very much that with this bipartisan effort that we have here, a bipartisan effort, that we will bring to an end those kinds of statements, mischaracterizing, grossly mischaracterizing the work of the United States House of Representatives.

I believe that it's been inappropriate to make those claims for a long period of time. Why? Because we have made many, many, many efforts over the past several months to put into place policies that can help create jobs. Have they all worked at this point? No. They're all obviously prospective. But if you look at what we've done in the area of encouraging domestic energy production, that's a critically important part of getting the economy going, increasing job opportunities and reducing energy costs for our fellow Americans.

If we look at the notion of trying to ensure that we open up new markets around the world for union and nonunion workers here in the United States of America, we have just, in a bipartisan way, with the support of both Democrats and Republicans, passed measures that will open up markets for us in Colombia, in Panama and in South Korea. I was privileged yesterday to be with the Ambassador from Korea as we marked a celebration, a bipartisan celebration of that effort.

Look at the measure that was passed, again, with huge bipartisan support, dealing with the 3 percent withholding for those contracting with Federal, State, and local governments that we are bringing that to an end. That's something that the President of the United States has asked of us. We passed it out of the House of Representatives. And I have to admit, it's a measure that should easily pass the United States Senate, and I hope that Majority Leader Reid does bring that measure up in the Senate. Unfortunately, it hasn't happened so far, but I do think it's something that should pass the Democratic-controlled Senate. It has passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives with strong bipartisan support.

Just this week we are continuing down that path towards putting into place a structure that will reduce the tax and regulatory burden to create jobs for our fellow Americans.

I think it's also important to note, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things that we need to do since we have seen an 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending for the 4 years leading up to this year, it's important that we decrease the size, scope and reach of government so that those small businessmen and -women who are seeking to create job opportunities are in a climate where that can take place. That's why I say that virtually everything that we have been doing to reverse that course that we were on, with that 82 percent increase in non-defense discretionary spending, everything that we've been trying to do to pare this down, the work that's going on right now of our 12 colleagues who are part of the joint select committee charged with reducing by $1.2 trillion over the next decade the level of spending and we hope--we hope--beyond that $1.2 trillion level.

All of these things, Mr. Speaker, are geared to getting our economy growing so that our fellow Americans will have more job opportunities. And so the message is a clear one. The process that we have is a very good one. I'm happy to say that if you look at the number of amendments that have been considered on the House floor in the first 9 months of this year, we've had 842 amendments considered on the House floor. I'm very pleased that we've been able to have a greater degree of openness and transparency. We've made every single amendment in order. There were many more Democratic amendments made in order than Republican amendments made in order on the two bills that are coming before us.

We have seen, as I said, 842 amendments considered here on the floor in the first 9 months of this year. But, Mr. Speaker, in the entire 111th Congress, that's 2 years, two sessions of Congress, there were a grand total of 787 amendments considered on the House floor. And so I'm very pleased that we have, in a bipartisan way, been able to open up the floor so that Members, regardless of their political party, Democrats and Republicans alike, have been able to have their ideas considered. And that is exactly what is going to happen under this special rule which we are considering at this moment.

So, Mr. Speaker, let me say again, job creation and economic growth is what this is about. The American people are hurting. The people of my State

have an unemployment rate that is well in the double-digits. Part of the area I represent has a 15 percent-plus unemployment rate. We need to do everything that we can to get our economy moving.

I would say to anyone out there, anyone out there who would try to make the claim that the United States Congress, specifically the House of Representatives, is not taking action to create jobs and get our economy growing is just plain wrong and that kind of mischaracterization has got to come to an end.

I look forward, again, to bipartisan support for both this rule, which allows, again, every Democratic and Republican amendment that was submitted to us to be considered on the floor and also the very strong bipartisan support that I know that both of these measures will have as we proceed with debate.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I would say to my friend who just yielded an additional 30 seconds, will the gentleman yield to me?

I would like to engage in a discussion, if I might, with my friend from Worcester who has just, in response to my quest to recognize that the measure that is before us today that is a job- creating measure will, in fact, Mr. Speaker, enjoy strong bipartisan support--and everyone acknowledges. I mean, all one needs to listen to is the minority floor manager of this measure that this issue is a jobs-creation item.

I yield to my friend from Worcester.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his very thoughtful contribution. Let me respond to his points.

Mr. Speaker, this is the President's jobs bill that we are considering today right here on the House floor. The President stood just over the gentleman's shoulder and addressed a joint session of Congress on the issue of job creation and economic growth and how he wanted his jobs bill brought forward. Do you know what he said to us? He said we needed to pass the Colombia, Panama, and Korean free trade agreements. And guess what? With bipartisan votes, we have embraced and supported that provision of the President's jobs bill.

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, now I will reclaim my time to say that, since my friend has brought up the issue of Colombia, and we've disagreed on this for a long period of time, there are 40 million consumers in Colombia. And right now there are people who are union workers at Caterpillar and at John Deere and at Whirlpool and other manufacturing companies in the United States who are going to have access to those consumers because of the agreement that we have put into place.

I would like to reclaim my time, if I might, to say to my friend that if one looks at the jobs that have been created in the manufacturing sector of our economy--and I'm very sympathetic to those workers that my friend has just spoken about in his district; but, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important for us to note that the United States of America today is still the number one manufacturing country on the face of the Earth.

It is true that there are other countries that are growing in the manufacturing sector, and it is true that we have lost manufacturing jobs in the United States of America, in large part due to the tax and regulatory burden, things like repatriation and other items which play a role in discouraging economic investment here in the United States, but having said that, we can't forget that the United States still is the number one manufacturer.

So with 96 percent of the world's consumers outside of our border, the idea of saying that we're ignoring the President's request--the President stood here. And I will admit, it's with our encouragement, I encouraged him just days after he was elected, Mr. Speaker, with our encouragement he has supported the idea of opening up these markets in Colombia and Panama and South Korea. And I will say, Mr. Speaker, that as we seek to do that, we have embraced these measures and we're doing them in a bipartisan way.

And so as my friend got up and said we're talking about ``In God We Trust'' rather than talking about jobs, we do have the ability, believe it or not, to walk and chew gum at the same time. But we all know that the top priority is making sure that we get our economy back on track. And, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we're doing. That's exactly what we have done for

the past several months. Because in the last Congress, with the passage of things like the stimulus bill that they told us that if we passed the stimulus bill the unemployment rate would not exceed 8 percent, we all know where it is. As I said, in part of my district it's in excess of 15 percent. That has been a failed policy.

We have been putting into place policies, again, working in a bipartisan way, unlike the way the stimulus bill was put into place at the beginning of last year. We have now, I believe, established policies that can play a big role to ensuring that those workers whose hands my friend shook in his district are able to have the kind of potential job opportunity that is necessary.

I'm happy, of course, to further yield to my friend, even though he would never yield to me.

If I could reclaim my time, Mr. Speaker, to say that this is not the President's jobs bill--I will admit, it was at our encouragement--but these are things that he said when he addressed us right here in a joint session of Congress. So it is for that reason that we have been able to come together in a bipartisan way to address these very important issues.

And so I'm happy, Mr. Speaker, to recognize and support bipartisanship when it comes to getting America working again.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear that jobs and the economy are issue number one for our constituents. Many of them don't see the recovery. Even though professional economists may see it, it is clearly the slowest and weakest recovery in the postwar era. We still have now 3 full years of 8-plus percent unemployment, half of our population now being classified as either low income or in poverty. Again, our constituents are demanding jobs.

Public policy makes a difference. Republicans have many disagreements with our President over public policy. We disagree with the $11 trillion of additional debt that he has put into his budget. We disagree with the $1.9 trillion in new job-killing tax increases he wants to impose, much of it on small businesses. We disagree--we believe the Keystone pipeline, with its 20,000 shovel-ready jobs, should be approved. We believe these policies harm job growth and the economy.

But, Mr. Chairman, we have a rare occasion today, and that is there is something that we do agree on. We have found an opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis, on common ground, with the President of the United States. The President said:

It is time to cut away the redtape that prevents too many rapidly growing start-up companies from raising capital and going public.

House Republicans agree, and thus we are happy to bring to the floor, on a bipartisan basis, the JOBS Act.

The President has issued his Statement of Administration Policy endorsing this legislation. Again, a rare occurrence, and I believe it's something that our constituents would like to see us do. They want to see us stand on principle, but they also want to see us compromise on policies to advance those principles. And so this is a bill that will give these emerging growth companies--again, perhaps the future Googles, perhaps the future Apples, the future Home Depots and the future Starbucks--that opportunity to begin to access equity capital where the hurdles, the redtape, and the cost burdens have been too high.

We know that, of many of the root causes of the economic debacle we had, clearly this was an economy that was overleveraged. So we in the Congress need to do whatever we can to enable the start-up companies, the job engines of America, to be able to access the equity markets, not just the debt markets. So this is a bill most of which has been previously approved by large majorities either in the Financial Services Committee or on the floor.

I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher) for his leadership, Chairman Bachus, Leader Cantor, and the ranking member, Mr. Frank from Massachusetts. The American people want to see jobs, hope, and opportunity. So let's pass the JOBS Act, and let's pass it now.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I now would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Quayle).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds to say that the American people care about jobs and economic growth, not a John Grisham novel of intrigue. Either the gentleman, the ranking member, likes the policy--in which case, he can vote for it. If he doesn't like the policy, he can vote against it. The President of the United States apparently supports it.

At this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), the author of the JOBS Act.

I yield myself 10 seconds just to say that President Reagan once said there's no limit to what the American people can achieve if they don't mind who gets the credit. We seem to hear the ranking member say, if I and my friends can't take credit, we're going to pick up our toys and go home. All of us can take credit if we will support the JOBS Act.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert), the chair of the Housing and Insurance Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.

I yield myself 10 seconds just to say the gentlelady alluded to the gentleman from Massachusetts for bringing something to our attention. What he brought to our attention is that he violated House rules and is prohibited from speaking the rest of the day when the rest of the Chamber wishes to promote jobs for the American people.

At this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Dold).

I yield myself 10 seconds simply to respond to my friend that we have tried the President's jobs bill, the stimulus, the health care package, Dodd-Frank; and yet we still have the highest duration of 8 percent-plus unemployment since the Great Depression. Here's at least a bipartisan bill we can work on, and I look forward to that today.

At this point, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett), the chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee.

Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

Madam Chairman, at this time, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the vice chairman of the Capital Markets Subcommittee, one of the prime authors of this bill, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).

Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Madam Chair, again, jobs and growing the economy is what our constituents care about. Again, we are unfortunately and regrettably in the midst of the slowest and weakest recovery in the postwar era. And, in fact, many of my constituents, they don't feel the recovery. They don't see it. They still know many of their friends, neighbors, and family members remain unemployed. That's why the number one priority of House Republicans has been to grow this economy and create more jobs. That is why House Republicans have a plan for America's job creators.

Now, Madam Chair, it's very difficult, very difficult, to find common ground in this institution, as we all know. Regrettably, the vast majority of these bills are stacked up like cordwood in the United States Senate. They won't take them up. We've tried many of the President's ideas. For 2 years we tried every single one of his ideas. We tried the stimulus program, which helped stimulate the national debt to the level it is today. We tried the President's health care plan that we were told would help grow jobs and the economy. Dodd-Frank, our financial institutions--the big get bigger, the small get smaller, and the taxpayer gets poorer.

We disagreed with those policies, and so we have tried to find common ground. We heard the distinguished minority whip lament that the bill didn't do more. This is the common ground we can find with our friends on the other side of the aisle. It's important. It's not as important as repealing the President's health care program, which is absolutely strangling our small businesses. It's not as important as turning back so much of the red tape that impacts every single small business in America by enacting the REINS Act to ensure that Congress, not the unelected bureaucracy, controls whether or not we impose job-killing regulations on our small business enterprises. But it's still an important bill nonetheless. It's a bill that will allow these emerging growth companies, again, perhaps the Googles of tomorrow and the Apples of tomorrow, to be able to access vital equity capital. And so it's an important piece of legislation. I wish it did more.

I wish my friends from the other side of the aisle would acknowledge that we have tried many of their partisan ideas, and they haven't worked. But here's at least a bipartisan idea where we have worked with the President. We have his support right here--right here--Madam Chair, where the President of the United States supports this legislation. So I'm happy that at least one portion of the House Republican plan for America's job creators stands a very good chance of being turned into law and that the American people will see that we continue to work to find that common ground.

So I'm happy, again, to be able to encourage my colleagues to support this today. I look forward to the day that the President can sign this into law.

At this time, Madam Chair, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Chairman, might I inquire how much time I have remaining.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to yield exactly that 1 minute to the prime author of the JOBS Act, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment; although I'm not opposed to the amendment.

I want to commend, again, the gentleman from Tennessee and the gentleman from Delaware for this amendment that I believe helps improve the underlying amendment with some technical corrections. I would urge all Members to adopt it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 3606, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act.

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to thank Chairman Bachus, Chairman Garrett and, certainly, Ranking Member Frank for their assistance and support on this bill. We were able to work in a bipartisan manner on this bill in our committee, passing many of the provisions in the bill with strong bipartisan majorities.

H.R. 3606 is an omnibus package of small business capital formation bills, some of which we already passed through the House back in November. I was pleased to work with Representative McCarthy on a provision now included in the bill to amend securities law in order to remove the prohibition on general solicitation, or general advertising, for the Office of Securities made under rule 506 of regulation D if those securities are only sold to accredited investors.

Last year, I worked with Representative McHenry to add critical investor protection provisions to this crowdfunding bill, which previously passed the House and is now included in this package. I was also pleased to support the provision from Representative Schweikert to allow companies to raise more funds through the Regulation A process and another provision to raise minimum shareholder thresholds at which companies must register their securities with the SEC.

On the title of this bill, which deals with the emerging growth companies, the IPOs, I support the goal of this legislation, and I hope that many of the amendments offered today on this title are accepted, including my own, which is dealing with the provision of research. Again, I am supportive of this legislation, but I think that more investor protection provisions are needed.

Why did we work together to get this legislation passed?

We worked from both sides of the aisle because we are all concerned about job creation and access to capital. We have gone through a recession in this country, starting with the loans that were made in the subprime market in 2003 to 2007. We almost reached a depression, and we destroyed the housing industry in this country. So we are all working to try and not only get the housing industry revitalized, but we are also working to make sure that our small businesses have access to capital and, thus, job creation.

I am very pleased that we were able to work together on this legislation despite the fact that what Mr. Frank brought to our attention today is the kind of effort that could interfere with attempts to have bipartisanship on some of these legislative attempts that we have made. What Congressman Frank brought to our attention was that title VI of the bill, a provision that was drafted by Representative Himes, with the support of Republicans, seems to have been bare minimally reworked and rebranded as a Representative Quayle bill.

While I support the provision, I think that taking Mr. Himes' work product undermines the spirit of bipartisanship and the cooperation that was otherwise demonstrated by this bill.

Do I like every one of these bills 100 percent? No, I don't. I have some concerns and I have some questions. I even have some uncertainty when we talk about crowdfunding. I want to make sure that we're protecting the investors. I want to make sure that the proper research is isolated from the underwriters who have connections to those people that they're writing the bills for.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

To sum up this bill, it will make it just a bit easier for some companies to raise funds in our capital markets, enabling them to grow their businesses. But make no mistake, I believe that this Congress still needs to do more on jobs. In addition to these legislative changes that enable capital formation, we need to keep teachers, police officers, and firefighters on the job; extend unemployment insurance for laid-off workers; and revitalize neighborhoods devastated by foreclosures.

A truly comprehensive approach is needed to get Americans working again, and I hope my colleagues are willing to work with me on these issues.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Steny Hoyer.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).

Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.

To the Members of this House and to those who are listening to this debate, you've heard this described as a jobs bill. In my earlier remarks, I, too, described this as a jobs bill. You've heard us talk about job creation, access to capital, ways by which we can support small businesses in general but IPOs in particular. You heard us talk about crowdfunding and creative means by which we can help to invigorate this economy. And so certainly this is a jobs bill. But then you heard some reference to the President's jobs bill by our minority whip, Mr. Steny Hoyer, who talked about a comprehensive approach.

Make no mistake, this jobs bill is important, and I certainly hope that it will help to stimulate the economy in ways that all of us thought that it could. However, when you take a look at this compared to the President's comprehensive legislation, then you understand what Mr. Steny Hoyer was talking about.

Mr. Steny Hoyer was talking about the President's comprehensive jobs bill that would do some very important things. It talked about job sharing. It will make sure that our teachers and our firefighters are kept on the job. It talks about school construction. It talks about aid to community college and comprehensive efforts to provide tax credits for small businesses.

So, you see, we would like everybody to understand that we're not abandoning a comprehensive effort to do real job creation and access to capital and support for small businesses. We're trying to take every opportunity, every step, as it has been mentioned time and time again.

I yield myself 1 minute.

Continuing the comparison between the two efforts, as has been said over and over again today, we certainly have joined in a bipartisan fashion to move this bill. Even though I am not sure and some of our Members are not sure that everything that's in all of these bills is what we absolutely understand and we're willing to say we know that it will help, it will help to deal with this economy in ways that we want it to, but we are willing to take a chance. We're willing to try.

Now, when you compare this with the President's comprehensive jobs bill, then you can see this is only one effort; and in comparison, it's a small effort in comparison to what the President has proposed. And so, let us not forget, we still have work to do. We still have to be concerned about the unacceptably high unemployment rate. As we speak today, the unemployment rate is still in excess of 8 percent.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would like for us all to recognize that we are taking a step that we are constantly accused of not being able to do, and that is move something in a bipartisan fashion.

I'm appreciative for my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle who have been so cooperative, and I'm appreciative for the leadership that has been provided on this side of the aisle. But we still must remember that unemployment is unacceptably high. We must remember that we must have a comprehensive approach. We must remember that the President has presented us with a comprehensive, realistic approach by which we can stimulate this economy, create jobs, support education and our schools, and help the unemployed in ways that they are desperately waiting for.

With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.